Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3585-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 27, 1983 Item No. 15 - Z -3585-A Owner: Rivercity Land Company Applicant: John McKay Location: Northwest Corner of Kanis Road at Barrow Road Request: Rezone from various classifications to "O-3", "C-3" and "C-4`° Purpose: Develop office and commercial sites Size: 1.7 acres to '10-311 1.7 acres to "C-4" 0.37 acres to "C-3" Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Office and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Commercial and Residential, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The tract of land involved has much potential for use as office and commercial. However, at present, there appears to be a changing environment which makes it difficult to fix uses or classifications. 2. The -site is generally good buildable lot area along the arterial street frontage with very steep terrain lying to the west and north. 3. The only right-of-way issue is on Kanis Road adjacent to Lot 1. However, a plat reflecting dedication has been filed and approved by the Commission on September 13, 1983. 4. There were no adverse comments received concerning public services or utilities. 5. There are no legal issues attendant to this request. September 27, 1983 Item No. 15 - Continued 6. A neighborhood on the north in Paid -on Place and Longacre Additions has consistently opposed encroaching commercialization in their neighborhood. The last occasion for strong objection involved the buffer strip 50' wide along the north side of this plan. That strip was a concession by AP&L when rezoning the abutting land to commercial. 7. The staff position on this matter is elastic due to the changeable state in which we see this property. The land appears to be drawn on the one hand into the fold of the Baptist Medical Center for office usage. On the other, there is a real project removing a portion of the land from commercial zoning and developing a office complex. The street system indicated appears to be quite flexible dependant on who buys what parcel and the direction of the Baptist Medical Center when extending Lile Drive connection entering from the west. The staff does not take exception to nor oppose "C-4" zoning along the perimeter streets. We do feel that all of the inward oriented lots should be committed to a less intense zoning, perhaps "0-3." A commitment on the part of Baptist Medical Center to down zone to "0-3" on the "C-3" portion abutting to the west will be requested by this applicant. This will be accomplished in hopes of gaining some continuity of use and zoning along Lyle Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In the absence of real development plans and with many unknowns, staff offers the following recommendation: 1. That areas 1 and 2 on the proposal be approved as filed to down zone for office use. 2. That area 3 be approved as filed in order that the entire block be zoned in one classification and hopefully development will occur in a single user. 3. That areas 4 and 5 not be reclassified at this time, but that their use and redevelopment be attached to real plans at some future point. We would point out that arguments can be made both ways on this buffer issue. We are simply taking the more cautious approach at this time. The ordinance as written would permit the owner, if rezoned, to use all but 15' of this strip for physical improvements. As now classified, it may not be used for parking or structures. September 27, 1983 Item No. 15 - Continued 4. That Lots 6 and 7 be refiled for "0-3" General Office zoning which will then be compatible with the office use on Lot 11 and align with apparent intentions of the Baptist Medical Center. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Mr. McKay, was present and offered comments in support of his request. He answered questions as to the composition of the request and the projected usage of the Baptist Medical Center properties lying to the west. There were no objectors present. Mr. Bruce Knox, representing a neighboring property, requested general information as to the proposal filed. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.