HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
2-2-84
~ page 2
zoning request to the Council
a 14.489 acre
Mr. Callaw-aylocated and described the land, po-inted out area zoning and stated that the
area. Is predomInantly vacant now. He stated that this area is reflected as A-P zoning
on the ComprehensIve Plan w-lth commercial uses at _the intersection. He said that although
this tract has-adequate depth for a portion of -it to be developed as C-l, staff would
recommend thatthls land be zoned A-P. He further po intedout_ on the map that approx i-
mately ha] f of "the-frontage on the Frontage-Road Ls 1 essthan 200 feet deep, ~wh i ch repre-
sents the acceptable'depth for commercial development lnthis CIty. Gen~ral discussion
followed w:lththeCommiss-ion asking staff" if the Commission can recommend a zoning dis-
trlctother than-that which is requested, and Mr. Callaway replied that it can, and staff
would recommend that this Commission make a recommendati-on to the City Council to rezone
this land to A-P~ Mr. Mayo concurred that the Council has asked that the Commission
make a recommendatlon.ratherthan just forward a denial to the-Council. Mr. Hill asked
why staff is reeommendfng A-P zoning on this tract and Mr. Mayo explained that the con-
sultants.wh.o pr-eparedthe ComprehensivePtan had generally left existing zoning as it
was shown (R-l) ,"but due to the difflcultl.teswhich would be encountered in developing
thlsland toreslc:f'entlalstandards because of the location of the flood plain and the
2-2-84
page 3
that this-land. be rezoned to :A-P. Mr , Kelly said
zoned land, This motion -died 'for lack of a second.
Mr. Martyn seconded the
'-s that he is uncertain of
2-2-84
page 4
.,.,
.. tract sheuld be judged en Its own merit .andthatthe Plan is net infallible. Votes were
cast and this motion failed 3--3 (Mi-ller, Hill & Martynln favor to deny).
Mr..Ka lsersaidthls ....lsiacrltlcalareabetween ....2maJorJ ntersect. ions in th is C lty, and
heweuldfeelmorecomfortablelf staff weuld study..this area mere clesely and include
all. nptural features." in thIs study and in .. its recemmendat ien. He went en to. say this
ceuldbedenled,>waiving the 180 daywaitingperied teallewstaff te>make the study.
HethenpaJntedout that just across the creek an Industrial area is shewn en the Land
Use Plan, but It Is currently zoned for SlngleFamilyResidential development.
Mr. BaIley made a mot'lon to recommend to the Council that this be rezoned to A.~P . Mr.
Kel'lysecondedthemotJ.on,stat'ingthatCounc i1 hastheauthorlty but that hei s still
not. happywl.thJ4acres ofA-P. Hewentc>nto say he would rather this request be tabled
sotheappllcantwould have a chance to reconsi"der his request.
Mr. Miller said it/lJaYi!ppear thatheisoppesedteA-P zening, but he clarified by
stating he is not opposed to<theCamprehensive Plan,<but iseppesed to. 14+ acres ef A-P
land w.ith an odd shape, and further that he's not sure what shou 1 dbedone.. Mr , Kaiser
said fromthlstracteasttotheflood plain would be almost inaccessible unless this
area tsexpanded. Mr.HillsaJd the CommIssion could state an opinion. Mr. Kaiser said
this Commlss"ion could recommend rezoning up to the creek. Mr. Martyn pointed out that
would be lots-more than 30 acres. Mr. Kaiser agreed, stating that is why he believes
thJsentire area. should be studied more carefully. Votes were cast with the motion fail-
Jog (3-3),
Mr. Miller" madea....l11otlonto.table..this...request, ..stating.any action. would be pr.emature.
Mr, Kalser seconded .the.mati-on. Motion to table carried 4-2 (Bailey & Martyn aga'inst).
AGENDA. ITEM NO. 5: '84-103: Apubllehearingon the question of rezoning a 6.34 acre.
tractoflandln'theMorgan RectorLeaguelocatedalongthefutureextens'ion of. Holleman
DriveacioJ"aeentto-..~l"ld.north- eftheRichardsAddlt ionSubdlvls ion,' fromApartmentsH i gh
Dens"l.tyDlstrJ-Q't-R-6toGeneralCommerclal'Ol'strlctC-l. Application. is' in the name of
James E.. .J ett .
Mr. Callaway explained tha.tthls request is to. rezene 6.34 acres frem R-I Single Family
Resldentia-l to:'C-l General Commercial ,stating that the area in the immediate vicinity to
theno.rth, eas,t.. and south is resident i-alwi thgeneral commercial zoning to the west,
although someofthearealsvacant. He stated that staff recommends denial of the requesi
for severalr_easons, includlng (l}Comprehensive Plan reflects area as low density resi-
dentfal; -(2}ProposedC-l.area does not meet mInimum depth' policy from pro'posed Holleman
Streetextens,fon ;(3lPropclsedC-la rea l sadJacent to an ex lstl ng Soing 1 e Fam i 1 y subd i v i-
slon;and'(4)The proposedC-'larea J.s reflected as low-density residential on the land
Use P.lan, Hedld,how.ever, point out that some residential classif'ica.tion such asR-3
would be In cOJ'l1plJancewith the Plan. Mr. Miller asked If this .land ceuld be. develeped
asSlngleFamlly Resldentfa:landalso a-sked if the land is actually now zoned R-las Mr.
CallawayTsreportstates,or' if It' szonedR-6 as the agenda and the"appl i cat ion state.
Mr. Callaway saJd<'Jtrs zoned R-] at this time, and further thaf- the land could be zoned
as low-densltyresfdential but it would probably be difficult to develop as R-l. He
went0nto-'expla'ln that the depth of the lots would comply with R-3 zoning requirements,
and R-3woulclgl"ve moreflexibll ity and would, in all probability, be more feasIble than
R-l development"
The pui>Hc hearing wasopened.- James E. . Jett, ewnerandapp 1 i cant came ferward and ex-
plained tl1atC--lzoninSJ.has been requested fer severalreasens, Including the fact that
theexlst<ingzonJngweuldrequirean additional number efacce~s ways off Holleman
Street.~....multlple famllydevelopment...would....encounter circulation probJems, but general
2-16-84
page 5
recommendation of
proposed roadway/
Kelly seconded.
with Mr. Sa i 1 ey