HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3506 Staff AnalysisJuly 29, 1960
Item No. 4 - Z-3506
Owner: Warren Mercer.
Applicant: Warren Mercer
Request: Rezone to "PRD" Planned Residential
Development District
Purpose: Residential Planned Unit Development
for 27 Units
Existing Zoning: "R-2" Single Family
Location: North off Cantrell. Near
Reservoir Park
Site Characteristics: Heavily Wooded, Steep Slopes
Size: 19 Acres +
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Abutting Land Use
North -
Vacant
and Zoning:
Zoned
"R-2."
South -
Single
Family
Zoned
"R-2"
East -
Vacant
and Commercial
Zoned
"R-2" and "C-3"
West -
Single
Family and Vacant
7,oned
"R-2"
Zoning History:
None
Applicable Regulations: Zoning Ordinance
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff has reviewed the proposal under the development criteria
established within the Ordinance and finds that the project
proposed meets the requirements with the exception of the
specification that topographic information be shown with two foot
contours. The applicant has chosen to use five foot contour
intervals because of the significant slope within the site.
Staff finds this to be a reasonable choice.
The density of the development proposed is quite low, less than
1.5 units per acre. The quality of the development stated by the
applicant seems appropriate for the neighborhood. An exceptional
amount of natural open space will remain following development of
the site, computed at 77 percent of the property by the
designers.
July 29, 1980
Item No. 4 - Continued
No adverse comments have been received from neighboring property
owners. Site plan review by the Planning Commission is scheduled
for July 31.
Staff fully supports this PUD development concept and believes
that this site is particularly attractive for this proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the PUD with the condition that the
site plan approval is granted.
COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and described the proposed project in
great detail and discussed the rationale for approaching this
development in the manner proposed. There were no opponents
present. There were, however, a few neighboring property owners
who raised a number of questions and discussed the project both
with the Planning Commission and with the applicant. After a
lengthy discussion, the Commission moved to approve the
application with the condition that site plan approval be granted
a future meeting. The motion was approved - 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3
absent and 1 abstention. (George Wittenber abstained citing
conflict of interest.)