Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3530-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 29, 1981 Item No. 2 - Z -3530-A Owner: Kelton Brown Applicant: Robert J. Richardson Location: Southeast Corner, Barrow Road and Labette Drive Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to 110-1" Quite Office, and "R-4" Two Family Purpose: Office and Residential Development Size: 16 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Residential, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency. This property has been denied "MF -18" zoning in past two years. The Brownwood Terrace residents have opposed multifamily zoning, but are in support of this application as presently shown. The Boyle Park District Plan shows no office uses in this area, limiting the proposed development to residential. Staff has discussed the possible swap of 110-3" zoning on -the west side of Barrow Road for the 110-1" proposed for the east side, but could not see the true benefit inasmuch as the applicant has stated that this downzoning will likely occur in any event. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. September 29, 1981 Item No. 2 - Continued COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The applicant discussed the meetings that had been held with the B'rownwood Terrace Property Owners Association and the proposal for zoning. Mrs. Rhodes, speaking for the home owners, stated that the Home Owners Association was, in fact, in agreement with the application as now presented to the Planning Commission and asked for its approval. The Planning Commission discussion revolved around the relationship of this application to the Boyle Park District Plan, and it was pointed out that the plan had not yet been adopted. Willard Johnson pointed out, further, that some of the factors in the Boyle Park Plan were not in accordance with earlier adopted proposals by the Neighborhood Committee in that area. After this discussion, the Planning Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The motion passed: 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent. July 28, 1981 Item No. 2 - Z -3530-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Kelton Brown Robert J. Richardson Southeast Corner of Barrow Road and Labette Drive Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF -12" Multifamily Multifamily Development Unspecified 16 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Residential, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency regarding this request. The applicant was denied "MF -18" zoning on this same property about one year ago. At that time, significant opposition was expressed by the residents of Brownwood Terrace Subdivision, which lies north of this property. No neighborhood opposition has been expressed so far regarding this new application. Staff opposed the previous request, citing the existence of several vacant properties zoned for apartments in the nearby area. Nothing has changed in this regard. This property is shown for single family development on the Boyle Park Plan, which is due for adoption soon. There appears to be little demand for apartment land in this area, and this request seems inappropriate at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial. July 28, 1981 Item No. 2 - Continued COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were several interested neighbors. The applicant stated that he and the neighbors had agreed that they wanted additional time to try to work out some suitable arrangement relative to this request and requested a three month deferral of the matter for this purpose. Staff stated that a readvertisement of the issue would be required, but that no further notice would be necessary because interested parties are involved in the process throughout this entire deferral period. The Planning Commission moved to defer the matter for 90 days and directed staff to readvertise the matter at the appropriate time. The motion was passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.