HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4092-A Staff AnalysisMarch 25, 1986
Item No. A - Z -4092-A
Owner:
Applicant:
,Lac-ation:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Robert M. Cearley, Jr. and
Chester D. Phillips
Robert N. Cearley, Jr.
Fairview Road and Pleasant
Ridge Road
Rezone from "MF -12" to "0-3"
Office Development
6.2 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "PRD"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -6"
West - Vacant, 'honed "PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone
the Cedar Branch Subdivision from "MF -12" to "0-3" for
an office use. The property is platted for low density
multif-amily development, but all lots are vacant. The
site is situated at the northwest corner of Fairview
and Pleasant Ridge Roads in an area that has a mix of
zoning and land use. The zoning includes "R-2," "PRD,"
"MF -6" and "0-3" with primary land use being single
family residential. There are some nonconforming
commercial uses to the southeast and a high percentage
of the land is still vacant including an existing "0-3"
tract. The immediate area appears to be better suited
for a mix of re.s1demt al_.,uses• with single family- to the
south and higher densities to the north of Pleasant
Ridge Road. This is due to the property's location
which does not have a great amount of visibility which
is needed for a viable office development.
2. The site is vacant, wooded and increases in elevation
from east to west.
March 25, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
r.ewiewa ng --agencies -as ,of ---t-h-is writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The property was rezoned to "MF -12" in October
of 1983.
7. Staff's position is that the property is better suited
for multifamily development and does not support the
"0-3" request because the property is too isolated for
an office project and the request is in conflict with
the adopted plan. The property is removed from more
visible nonresidential locations and does not lend
itself to office development because of that factor and
the existing development pattern. The Suburban
Development Plan identifies an area .to the -east
primarily between Woodland Heights and Rodney Parham
for office development. Staff views that as being a
more desirable location. The Highway 10 Study which
was never formally adopted by the City Board of
Directors also recommended a multifamily use for this
site with office development being to the east and
southeast. The existing "MF -12" is compatible with the
-area and should be maintained.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "0-3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-17-85)
Staff informed the Planning Commission that the
owner/appli_cant_h.ad_.s.ubmit-t-ed,-a wri-tten---request for a
- deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
January 28, 1986, meeting._ The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(1-28-86)
Staff recommended to the _PI.anni.ng Commis-s,ion ithat the item
be -deferred to the February 25, 1986, meeting. A motion was
made to defer the request to the February meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(2-25-86)
Staff recommended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A
motion was made to defer the request to the March 25, 1986,
meeting. The motion_ was .approved...by -a--vote, of -8 ,awes., D
noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(3-25-86)
The applicant was not present. Staff gave a brief status
report on the request. A motion was made to withdraw the
item without pre - Judice. The motion_ mas-appro_v-ed by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.