Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3794-A Staff AnalysisDecember 13, 1983 Item No. G - Z -3794-A Owner: Mr. and Mrs. R.A. Richardson Applicant: Robert J. Richardson Location: 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Request: Rezone from "I-2" Light Industrial to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Commercial Size: .6 acres + Existing Use: Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office, Zoned "R-3" South - Industrial and Commercial, Zoned "R-3" and "I-2" East - Industrial and Commercial, Zoned "I-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. There is a building on the site which is occupied by office and commercial uses. The proposal is to maintain the existing uses and no major changes are being proposed for the property. The "C-3" request appears to be more suitable for the present use of the property and its long range plans. 2. The site is relatively flat with a slight grade up to Rebsamen Park Road. No other unique physical features are present. 3. There are no right-of-way or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this site. 6. The property in question was rezoned from "R-3" to "I-2" in January, 1982. At that time, the staff recommended approval of rezoning the location to "C-3" as shown in the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. The property did have some industrial use there and the Planning Commission moved to approve the "I-2" because of the industrial tracts to the south and east. December 13, 1983 Item No. G - Continued 7. The "C-3" request is in accordance with the Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff views the proposed reclassification to be more compatible with the area. There is a large pocket of "I-2" zoning to the south of this site between Rebsamen :Park Road and the railroad tracks, but a majority of the uses are actually commercial. There is only one occupied industrial use west of the railroad and that is directly to the south of this site. Commercial and office uses appear to be more appropriate for the area between the railroad tracks and Rebsamen Park Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-15-83) The applicant was present. The Commission was informed that the applicant had not notified the property owners as required by the bylaws. A motion to defer the item to December 13, 1983, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. NOTE: The Planning Commission requested the applicant to renotify the property owners within 200'. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-13-83) The applicant was present. Property owners were renotified as requested by the Commission. The case was discussed briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. November 15, 1983 Item No. 14 - Z -3794-A Owner: Mr. and Mrs. R.A. Richardson Applicant: Robert J. Richardson Location: 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Request: Rezone from "I-2" Light Industrial to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Commercial Size: .6 acres + Existing Use: Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office, Zoned "R-3" South - Industrial and Commercial, Zoned "R-3" and "I-2" East - Industrial and Commercial, Zoned "I-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. There is a building on the site which is occupied by office and commercial uses. The proposal is to maintain the existing uses and no major changes are being proposed for the property. The 11C-3" request appears to be more suitable for the present use of the property and its long range plans. 2. The site is relatively flat with a slight grade up to Rebsamen Park Road. No other unique physical features are present. 3. There are no right-of-way or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this site. 6. The property in question was rezoned from "R-3" to "I-2" in January, 1982. At that time, the staff recommended approval of rezoning the location to "C-3" as shown in the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. The property did have some industrial use there and the Planning Commission moved to approve the 11I-2" because of the industrial tracts to the south and east. November 15, 1983 Item No. 14 - Continued 7. The "C-3" request is in accordance with the Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff views the proposed reclassification to be more compatible with the area. There is a large pocket of "I-2" zoning to the south of this site between Rebsamen Park Road and the railroad tracks, but a majority of the uses are actually commercial. There is only one occupied industrial use west of the railroad and that is directly to the south of this site. Commercial and office uses appear to be more appropriate for the area between the railroad tracks and Rebsamen Park Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The Commission was informed that the applicant had not notified the property owners as required by the bylaws. A motion to defer the item to December 13, 1983, passed by a vote of 10'ayes,.0 noes and 1 absent. NOTE: The Planning Commission requested the applicant to renotify the property owners within 2001. December 13, 1983 Item No. G - Z -3794-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Mr. and Mrs. R.A. Richardson Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Rezone from "I-2" Light Industrial to "C-3" General Commercial Commercial .6 acres + Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office, Zoned "R-3" South - Industrial and Commercial, Zoned "R-3" and 111-211 1I-211 East - Industrial and Commercial, Zoned "I-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. There is a building on the site which is occupied by office and commercial uses. The proposal is to maintain the existing uses and no major changes are being proposed for the property. The "C-3" request appears to be more suitable for the present use of the property and its long range plans. 2. The site is relatively flat with a slight grade up to Rebsamen Park Road. No other unique physical features are present. 3. There are no right-of-way or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this site. 6. The property in question was rezoned from "R-3" to "I-2" in January, 1982. At that time, the staff recommended approval of rezoning the location to "C-3" as shown in the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. The property did have some industrial use there and the Planning Commission moved to approve the "I-2" because of the industrial tracts to the south and east. December 13, 1983 Item No. G - Continued 7. The "C-3" request is in accordance with the Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff views the proposed reclassification to be more compatible with the area. There is a large pocket of 11I-2" zoning to the south of this site between Rebsamen Park Road and the railroad tracks, but a majority of the uses are actually commercial. There is only one occupied industrial use west of the railroad and that is directly to the south of this site. Commercial and office uses appear to be more appropriate for the area between the railroad tracks and Rebsamen Park Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.: (11-15-83) The applicant was present. The Commission was informed that the applicant had not notified the property owners as required by the bylaws. A motion to defer the item to December 13, 1983, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. NOTE: The Planning Commission requested the applicant to renotify the property owners within 200'. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-13-83) The applicant was present. Property owners were renotified as requested by the Commission. The case was discussed briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.