HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3918-A Staff AnalysisDecember 13, 1983
Item No. D-1 - Z -3918-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Dailey Drive and Baseline Road
Investment Group
Robert J. Richardson
Baseline Road and Dailey Drive
Southwest Corner
Rezone from "R-2 Single Family
to "C-3" General Commercial
Mini -warehouses and retail
4.05 acres +
Existing Use: Single Family and Mobile Homes
.qTTPPnTTmnTNC, T.Amn TT.qF. ANTI 7.nMTN(',
North
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R-2"
South
Single
Family
and Mobile Homes, Zoned "R-2"
East
- Single
Family
and Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
West
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop the property for retail uses
on the Baseline frontage and mini -warehouses on the
remaining portion which will require a conditional use
permit. Currently, the site is occupied by two single
family units along Baseline Road and Mobile Homes on
the west side of the Dailey Drive frontage. A
commercial zoning at this location is not compatible
with the long range plans for the area and could lead
to the establishment of a commercial strip along
Baseline Road. Retail development/uses should be
continued at the major intersections with Baseline Road
and not at Dailey Drive.
2. The site has a slight slope with the low point being on
the north, Baseline Road. The portions of the property
that are not developed are heavily wooded.
4 December 13, 1983
Item No. D-1 - Continued
3. Baseline Road is classified as a principal arterial on
the Master Street Plan so dedication of additional
right-of-way will be required.
4.. Engineering has indicated that boundary street and
drainage improvements will be required. No other
adversity from the reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no apparent legal issues associated with this
request.
6. A previous "C-3" zoning application was filed in
November 1982 for the northeast corner of the tract.
The rezoning was to allow the construction of a
restaurant. At the public hearing, the case was
discussed at length and the application was amended to
request "0-3" zoning which was determined to be more
appropriate for the location. Staff recommended denial
of the "C-3" and supported the "0-3" request. The
Planning Commission approved the "0-3." (A conditional
use permit for the restaurant was never applied for.)
The applicant did not pursue the application beyond the
Commission. The property still remains "R-2." The
property at that time was occupied by a nonconforming
mobile home sales lot.
7. The Suburban Development Plan recommends office
development for this site and staff supports this type
of land use pattern. The commercial uses should be
located at the major intersections with Baseline Road
as the Suburban Development Plan shows. Allowing
commercial zoning beyond the locations recommended in
the plan could create a development pattern along
Baseline Road similar to the commercial strip along
Geyer Springs Road. Suburban Development Policy #85
states, "grant future zoning changes, where
appropriate, only when in substantial conformance with
the Suburban Development Plan."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and spoke briefly. Staft informed
the Commission that the applicant had mailed the required
notices seven days prior to the hearing, not 10 days as
stated in 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'.
R
t
ir
December 13, 1983
Item No. D-1 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-13-83)
The applicant, Robert Richardson, was present.. Staff
informed the Commission that the applicant had renotified
the property owners as requested by the Commission at the
November 15, 1983, meeting. The Commission held a lengthy
discussion on the application. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion
failed due to lack of an affirmative vote. The vote:
1 aye, 9 noes and 1 absent. The applicant then amended the
application to "0-3." A motion was made to recommend
approval of the amended application. The motion passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
r