HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3812 Staff AnalysisMarch 30, 1982
Item No. 7 - Z-3812
Owner:
Central Baptist Church and
Otis Howe, Trustee
Applicant: J.E. Hathaway
Location: Northeast corner of
West Markham Street and I-430
Request: Rezone from "C-3" General
Commercial, "MF -6" Multifamily
and "0-3" General Office to
"C-3" General Commercial
Purpose: Commercial/Office Development
Size:
16.5 acres +
Existing Use: Commercial and Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - State Natural Resources Complex, Zoned "R-2"
South - Offices, Zoned "0-3"
East - Vacant, Zoned "0-3," 110-2," "MF -6"
West - I-430, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency regarding this request. Since the original request
was filed, the applicant has amended the application as
follows: "C-3" on the south 300 feet, "0-2" on the center
610 feet (the remainder of that which is now zoned "MF -6"
and leavng the northern portion 110-3" as now zoned.
The proposal is to locate a major office building on the
"0-2" site, two restaurants and another commercial use on
the "C-3" frontage and to use the remaining portion for
other offices.
Office usage of the property was envisioned on the Suburban
Development Plan. Nearly all of the frontage along Markham
Street is presently zoned "C-3." Staff is supportive of the
additional zoning requested for the frontage and amending
the Suburban Development Plan to reflect the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with the plan amendment.
March 30, 1982
Item No. 7 - Z-3812 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The
applicant made a fairly lengthy presentation on the proposed
development. After this discussion, the Commission moved to
approve the application as amended, recommending approval of
zoning the south 300' "C-3" and the next northerly 610' from
"MF -6" to "0-2" and leaving the presently zoned "0-3"
portion 110-3." This motion was passed: 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
The Commission also moved to approve a change in the
Suburban Development Plan to reflect the zoning proposed by
this applicant. That motion was passed: 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.