Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3472-A Staff AnalysisDecember 15, 1981 ZONING Item No. 18 - Z -3472-A OWNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PURPOSE: SIZE: John McClellan Robert C. Lowe West Side of Natural Resources Drive just South of the State Complex Rezone from "0-2" Office and Institutional to 110-3" General Office Office Subdivision 3.29 Acres + EXISTING USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - State Natural Resources Complex - Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant - Zoned "MF -6" East - Vacant - Zoned "0-2" West - I-430 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency regarding this request. Use is not at issue in this application; rather, development type is the concern. 110-2" zoning requires minimum lot sizes of two acres and contemplates cohesive "office park -type" developments, and the applicant intends to plat this property into about five lots to be sold for separate development. Staff is unconvinced that subdivision of this site is warranted or will provide for the quality of development which is desirable. Staff is requesting further information from the applicant, and will be prepared to make a final recommendation at the meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The applicant showed the Planning Commission the proposed plat for the property, indicating five lots with a 20,000 square -foot average. He explained the reasoning for wanting to plat the property in this manner, stating that the site was awkward to work with in that it was too large for a December 15, 1981 Item No. 18 - Continued single building site and too small for a major office site. He stated that in his view the "0-3" District perhaps was in error in that it has a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet, and stated that he thought perhaps it should be recommended that that square footage be increased to approximately 20,000 square feet, thereby allowing better development in the same kind of zoning situation. After a brief discussion, the Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The motion was passed: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.