Rezoning on Anderson Mill won’t allow for used car lot

City Council last week rejected a rezoning request from the owners of property on Anderson Mill Road that would have allowed them to open a used car lot on the property.

However, Council Member Mackenzie Kelly offered to help Ramin and Jennifer Zavareh come up with a request Council could support by its next meeting on May 18.

On Thursday, Ramin and Jennifer Zavareh asked the city to rezone their property at 9815 and 9817 Anderson Mill Road, hoping for Community Commercial (GR) zoning to allow them to open a used car lot on the property. But city staff and the Zoning and Platting Commission have opposed the requested change, with the Zoning and Platting Commission voting to follow staff’s recommendation to keep the zoning at Neighborhood Commercial-Conditional Overlay (LR-CO) combining district zoning.  The couple initially asked for General Commercial Services (CS) zoning, but amended the request in favor of GR.

Chief Zoning Officer Joi Harden told Council that although he seemed not to realize it, Ramin Zavareh was benefiting from the case because the new zoning would allow for several uses not allowed under the old zoning. That was the result of staff removing some of the previous conditional overlays, she said.

Planner Sherri Sirwaitis wrote in her assessment of the case, “The property in question is currently developed with a vacant single- family structure and a concrete pad (formerly a single-family residence) surrounded by several large trees.  There are religious assembly uses with surface parking areas, zoned LO-CO to the north … and south. On the east is a storage use and offices.” She said staff recommended LR-CO continue “because the existing zoning will permit the applicant to provide a variety of low intensity commercial, office and civic uses that will serve the surrounding residential areas.”

Alan Barrilleaux, a homeowner in Balcones Greene, was one of the neighbors who wrote a letter in opposition to GR zoning, noting: “I oppose the zoning change because I am concerned about the types of businesses that GR zoning would allow, for the following reasons: Many of the businesses allowed by GR zoning are incompatible with the church adjoining the property (Unity Church of the Hills) and across the street from the property (Bethany United Methodist Church); for example, Automotive Repair Services and Sales, Automotive Washing of any type, Bail Bond Services, Drop-Off Recycling Collection Facility, etc. Some of these businesses would create additional and potentially dangerous traffic conditions. Anderson Mill is heavily travelled and with the property being on a curve, not at an intersection and without access to a traffic light, dangerous driving conditions would result.”

Zavareh first asked Council for a postponement so he could figure out how to convince Council that his car lot would not cause all the problems neighbors depicted in their letters opposing the zoning. However, Council rejected that idea, reasoning that they would not vote differently on a later date. But then members of Council began to fret about the fact that once Zavareh’s request was rejected he would have to wait up to 18 months before submitting another zoning request on the same property.

After Kelly made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation, Council Member Ryan Alter made a substitute motion to send the item back to ZAP. However, Harden said staff would probably not change its recommendation and ZAP probably would not either. Therefore, sending it back to the commission would be a waste of time.

Alter then tried to withdraw his motion but Mayor Kirk Watson told him he could not do so – he could only urge his colleagues to vote no, which he did. The vote was unanimous. Kelly’s motion then passed, so the property is still zoned LR-CO, but with fewer restrictions on its possible uses. Council members may submit zoning change requests regardless of whether such a request has recently been submitted by a property owner. So, if Kelly can find a solution to the conundrum, the case may be back before Council next week.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

Posted In: Zoning, District 6