With two items heard before the Magnolia Planning Commission Monday night, the panel ultimately voted against both measure requests: one a variance request to operate and maintain an auto body and repair shop in an R3 (residential) zone at 605 N. Dudney, and the second, a request to split a single lot containing two homes at 542 Magnolia Street and 705 Dudney Street.
Russell Warren, who for the past eight years has operated Diamond Designs Body Shop at a 2519 N. Vine rental space, first informed the panel that he recently purchased the former tax service and auto maintenance shop property at 605 N. Dudney, hoping to move his business to that location. But he ran into a hiccup along the way. He discovered the property, even as it before was a similar business, actually sits in an R3 residential zone, therefore he needed approval from the commission for the variance.
“I came across a good deal and it turned out the zoning was wrong,” he said. “I think we can come in and fix the building up, better than it was before, and put new metal on it, put an awning on it, [and] new windows and doors. It would be just a small auto body and repair shop.”
Warren stated the only potential issues he could see on his end would be the running of an air compressor — which he stated would be kept in a small, indoor room — and the limited parking in front of the business. In total, only about eight parking spots sit at the building’s front.
“I know there’s not much parking there, but I plan on moving every car in at night,” he added.
Warren also said he would like to hire three more employees to work at the shop.
Many commissioners were concerned with the parking issue, as well. Leslie Kent, one of the most vocal in questioning Warren, asked how, with such a limited number of spaces to begin with, would he have any room for customer parking.
Warren told Kent that a few parking spaces would still be open in front of the auto bay doors and that he would like to purchase the lot across the street — which is a commercially zoned property — to expand available parking.
“I’m looking at the empty lot across the street,” he said, “and [I will] try to use that for the daytime overflow of parking.”
Warren also said he would like to purchase a lot directly behind the Dudney Street address to offer even more of a buffer to the surrounding neighborhood.
But the small business owner was informed that he was fighting an uphill battle from the beginning on the project, since the space is so limited and that the property falls into an R3 designation.
“The distance from the front of the building to Dudney Street and the amount of available parking — that’s the thing that you’re fighting against,” said Joe Pieratt, planning commission chairman.
Kent added that no other commercial stops were near 605 N. Dudney, that it was “a block-and-a-half” away from the nearest commercial businesses, and the property was “a rather unpleasant eyesore” for decades.
“I respect for your willingness to expand your business and open your business,” he said, “but we have regulations and I’m sure the neighborhood — they’re probably very happy with it being empty and looking better than ever.”
In a rebuttal, Warren and property co-owner Billy Penick informed Kent and the commission that they were the ones which have actually cleaned the property in the last few months — a fact highlighted numerous times on the night by the commission — and that the business itself was built in 1947 and operated for years as an auto maintenance shop. They also reiterated that the lot directly across the street was zoned commercial.
As for nearby neighbors, Warren said he had spoken with an adjacent home and Penick, who owns nearby rental houses, also stated no one he had interacted with had issues with the shop.
“I haven’t heard anything negative about people being against [the business],” Penick added.
The co-owner also stated that security cameras were planned to be installed all around the perimeter, potentially making the area safer.
After a lengthy discussion on the matter, a motion was brought forth to grant the variance. But the vote failed 2-4. Commissioners Zachary Talley and Natasha Coleman voted in favor of the variance, while commissioners T.G. Connelly, Julia Nipper, Calvin Daniel, and Kent voted against the measure. Pieratt, as chairman, did not have a vote.
“The downside of this is that it has been that [kind of business] in the past,” he said.
It was determined that the former repair shop was built well before the city of Magnolia began zoning practices and operated that way under previous, unrestricted guidelines.
The property, since it has been voted on, now has a 12-month restriction for another variance request.
In a second request made to the commission Monday night, Rodney May of Columbia Property Management asked that a 7,400 square-foot lot with two addresses and two homes on it be split into separate lots.
In a quicker discussion than the night’s first agenda item, a motion was made to deny the variance request by Connelly, then unanimously voted in favor of.
The primary reasoning given by the commission was due to the city’s strict enforcement of splitting already small lots into more, tinier lots.
“The rules around lot splits are pretty clear,” said Pieratt. “It’s more than just a variance lot split for us because if it splits, we’re creating two substandard sized lots and creating on both lots issues with easements.”
The chairman added that a single-family dwelling’s minimum space requirement in an R3 zone, which the lot is, requires 6,500 square feet.
“If we split these, we have one lot that’s 2,982 and one lot that’s 4,429,” he said.
In a similar fate as Warren, May informed the commission that one home had already been sold, but not yet closed on, and that he did not know both lots were technically on the same parcel. The commission also came to the same conclusion as before with Warren’s case: that the lots were built well before any zoning codes existed in the city.
“It’s a little different to me [from the auto body shop variance request],” said Kent, “but it’s still against regulations, and it’s why we have the rules.”