HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3869 Staff AnalysisAugust 31, 1982
Item No. 4 - Z-3869
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
James M. Coker
A.B. "Burton" SpAights
510 Hardin Road
(see map)
Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "0-3" General Office
Of {ice Development
4.667 acres +
Single Family Residence
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R-2"
South
- Vacant,
Zoned
"0-3" and "C-3"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned
"0-3"
West
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency on this request. The applicant proposes to use this
property for the site of the fourth building in the
Financial Centre development. Neighbors have expressed some
concern that Burrwood Drive might be used for access to this
project, and the applicant assures that their intention is
to block the end of Burrwood so that no access can be taken.
The proposed building, when developed in two or three years
or more, will face east and take access from Hardin Road.
The applicant is proposing a 50 -foot "OS" Open Space buffer
along the north and west boundaries of the property.
STAFF REOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with the 50 -foot. "OS" buffers.
COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were 38 people from the
neighborhood there expressing some concern and opposition to
the zoning request. Speaking for the neighborhood was
Dorothy Stratton, of 400 Springwood Drive. She presented a
petition objecting to the zoning, and specifically mentioned
drainage as being the major concern. This petition had 22
August 31, 1982
Item No. 4 - Continued
signatures on it, and there was a second petition which
merely objected to the zoning generally, which contained 26
signatures. The Chairman also read a letter from
Mrs. Robert P. Howell, 423 Springwood Drive, stating her
opposition, and Robert Howell was present and spoke briefly
about the zoning application. He stated that his concerns
were the same as expressed by his wife in the letter and
also that which Ms. Stratton had stated earlier. He did
say, however, that the neighbors, he felt, would be more
inclined to accept 110-2" zoning on the property, which would
require a site plan review, giving them an opportunity to be
sure that the drainage situation was being adequately taken
care of.
There was a lengthy discussion of the drainage issues, and
Mike Batie from the City Engineering staff, and Joe White,
representing the applicant, both spoke relative to the
drainage concerns. Finally, after all the discussion had
taken place, the Commission asked the applicant if he would
amend.his application to "0-2" Office and Institutional, and
the applicant stated that he would. There was a motion to
approve "0-2" Office and Institutional zoning on the
property, with a recommendation that the north and west 50'
of the property be zoned "OS" Open Space. The motion passed:
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
Further, the Planning Commission stated that the minutes
should reflect that they will require notice to the
neighbors when the site plan review is scheduled in the
future.