HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesP&Z Draft Nfrnutes
~~
August 5, 1993
i Public hearin to consider a rezoning .....request of a 1.00 acre.. tract located
AGENDA ITEM N0.2. g
. 2pQ' west of the Baron Road and State Highway b intersection,.:. from R-1 Single .Family
aPproxunately
Residersriaal to C-1 General ConexciaL (93-109)~,i''
1
ented the staff re ort and recommended a proval with the provision that the two parcels be
.....City Planner Kee pies p P
into a sin le lot. The Ci Council may..also. opt to direct .staff to encourage transitional. zoning .for the
replotted g ty
toted to the west alan Barron Road. In addition, the Council has the option to direct. staff to require
property to g
consolidation of .access and signage between the ubject property :and the vacant C-1 tract to the south. The
i
'ect ro er was ven the interim zoning classification of R-1 Single Family Residential when it was annexed
subs P p tY ~
-into the Ci At -the time of annexation, the property had a preexisting torage building on it. when .thee. use was
• ~ e ` al nonconformin status and no use other than an R-1
changed. without the .:City s knowledge, the property lost 1 g g
use would not be ermined. Due to the enforcement action on the part of the City, the building has been vacant
p
since Ma of 1992. The sub'ect property is surrounded on three sides by C-1 General Commercial zoning... it
Y ~
seems unlikel that the sub'ect property..will be developed under its present zoning classification. To the north,
Y ~
iron Road the S rn brook subdivision is zoned and developed. for single family residential use.
across. Ba p g
eve o merit olicies su est that a roadway may prose to be an adequate. buffer between residential and
D p p gg
mmercial ro cities. The re uest is in compliance with the land use plan and would meet zoning .ordinance
co p p q
lot size re uirements. Techneall ,the lots da not meet the minimum depth policy .that was adopted in
minimum q Y
an effort to revent stri develo merit. However,. the transition zone as hown on the land use plan, if
p p ~ • • ossibil of a commercial stri . Staff does
implemented through future rezoning dec~slons, should eliminate the p ty p
have some concern regarding he fact that the request is for two relatively .small, narrow tracts .because each lot
eon-Barron Road.. Two commercial buildings in the given configuration could result _ in the negative
has frontag
im acts: associated with stri developments.. (proliferation of signage, numerous curb .cuts, etc.).: Replotting the
P p
two tracts into a single lot would alleviate these potential problems. Seven. surrounding property owners were.
notified of the public hearing. with no response..
on Hawthorne o cried the ublic hearin . Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition
Chairpers ~ p g
to the rezoning request, he closed the public hearing.
o mo ed to recommend a royal of the rezening request of a 1.00 acre tract located
Commissioner C~r~b u v pp
ximatel 240' west of the Barron Road and State Highway 6 intersection, from R-1 Single Family
appro.. y
• ' h toff recommendations. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion
.Residential to CSI .General Comm~rc~al, wit s
which passed unopposed (7 - ~}.
i
i
`i