HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3645 Staff AnalysisFebruary 24, 1981
Item No. 11 - Z-3645
Owner: Charles and Elizabeth Menard
Applicant: W.F. Rector, Jr.
Location: Southeast corner Rodney Parham
and Green Mountain Drive
Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to
"C-3" General Commercial
Purpose: Conformity with existing use
Size: 1 Acre +
Existing Use: Shopping Center
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant - zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant - zoned "PCD"
East - Cemetery - zoned "R-2"
West - Multifamily - zoned "R-5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency regarding this request. However, the Engineering
Department did state that the present traffic congestion and
parking problems on this property and at this location are
sufficient to warrant concern over any possible future
development in terms of add-on businesses. This proposal
does conflict with the Suburban Development Plan, which
indicates the property to be used in the future for
multifamily purposes. There is some concern for the flood
situation shown on the Suburban Development Plan, but
independent engineering confirms that this property is above
the 100 -year Flood Plain.
This is the second attempt to rezone the property for
commercial use. The first attempt in November 1976, was
approved by the Planning Commission on a 7 to 3 vote, and
then in December 1976, the Board of Directors unanimously
voted to deny the application.
At the time this property was annexed into the City, there
was a policy established by the Board of Directors which
stated that all nonconforming properties would be treated as
though zoned for the use in place. .Since then, that policy
has been changed, and this is now a nonconforming use.
February 24, 1981
Item No. 11 - Continued
Staff assumes that the previous Board action is a statement
of policy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial.
COMMISSION ACTION
Bill Hastings abstained citing conflict of interest with the
applicant. The applicant was present, and there were no
objectors. The applicant argued that the action taken by
the Board was in 1976, and because of the number of changes
that had taken place in the neighborhood, it seemed
appropriate in his view to recognize the existence of a
commercial use and the other commercial activities in the
area and to recommend approval of the zoning.
After a lengthy discussion, the Commission moved to approve
the application as filed. The motion was passed: 8 ayes,
1 no, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Hastings abstained).