HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3599 Staff AnalysisDecember 9, 1980
Item No. 7 - Z-3:599
Owner: Mrs. D.J. Haney
Applicant: Ed Moody
Location: Southeast Corner Hinson and
Napa Valley Roads
Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "0-2" Office and Institutional
Purpose: Medical Clinic
Size: 4 Acres +
Existing Use: Single Family Residence
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency, and no neighborhood comments have been received to
date. The most recent version of the Suburban Development
Plan shows this area for single family development
anticipating a continuation of the single family development
immediately to the south on Napa Valley Road.
When the Planning Commission decided to recommend the most
recent plan change showing office use east of the Arkansas
Psychiatric Clinic to Hinson Loop Road and south along the
west side of Hinson Loop Road to Rainwood Road, staff stated
that there would probably be pressure to extend the office
use westward to Napa Valley or further. Staff stated that
the line could be drawn if desired but would be difficult to
maintain. This request produces "leapfrog type" expansion
to the west and is not desirable.
Staff believes that there is sufficient land available in
the immediate area to accommodate the proposed development
and land which can be zoned for the use without seriously
effecting the plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial.
December 9, 1980
Item No. 7 - Continued
COMMISSION ACTION
The applicant was present and there were no objectors. The
applicant stated that there was a medical clinic proposed
for the property. He presented some rough drawings of some
of the plans for the clinic, explained the design of the
clinic and how it would relate to the neighborhood. He also
presented the Commission with a letter from the architect
who is working on the plans which stated that it would have
a predominantly residential favor to it. The applicant
introduced several supporters of the application who were
present. After a discussion of the issue, the Commission
moved to approve the application as filed. The motion was
passed: 8 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent.