HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4250-A Staff AnalysisMarch 25, 1986
Item No. B - Z -4250-A
Owner: Hartford and Kadelia Hamilton
Applicant: Carolyn Ulmer
Loc-ation.: Fe rview- Road North of
Pleasant Ridge Road
Request: Rezone from "PRD" to "0-2"
Purpose: Office Development
Size: 7.-0--aer-e-s +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "MF -12"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West -- Vacant, Zoned "PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the property from "PRD" to
"0-2" for an office development. The site is located
south of Highway 10 in the Fairview and Summit Road
area. In the immediate vicinity, the zoning is
primarily residential with some "0-3" and "C-1" to the
north along Pleasant Ridge Road. The land use is
.single family residential with a high percentage of the
area still vacant including the "0-3" and "C-1" sites.
Because of the property's location and the existing
development pattern, it appears that the most
reasonable use of the land is residential at an
appropriate density. The property does not have the
necessary visibility for a viable office location being
north -of ,Phasant__R.i.dg.e- Road.
2. The site is wooded and has a single family residence at
the northeast corner.
3. Fairview Road is classified as a residential street
which normally requires 50 feet right-of-way. The
survey indicates a r.i.g.ht.-_of-.way of ,3.0.feet so
dedication of additional right-of-way will be required.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
March 25, 1986
Item No. B - Continued
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. The property was reclassified from "R-2" to "PRD" in
August 1984. The ,,prgposal . vas for - 14 ,.fo.u.zp.le<x lots •,
one tract for 16 units and a single family lot with a
total of 73 units or 10 units per acre. There was no
neighborhood opposition and several petitions were
submitted in support of the request.
7. This property is part of the Suburban Development Plan
area which does not recognize a nonresidential use for
the site. Because of the plan, staff does not support
the rezoning proposal. This position is consistent
with the Highway 10 study which was never adopted by
the City Board of Directors but did recommend a
residential use for the land. The area does not lend
itself to an office development and should remain
residential with a mix of densities. (Staff has also
recommended denial for an "0-3" request on the property
directly to the south of this site.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "0-2" rezoning based on the
existing plan, but suggests a deferral as being appropriate
due to the work currently underway to develop a new plan for
this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-28-86)
Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the item
be deferred for at least 30 days. A motion was made to
defer the request to the February 25, 1986, meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-25-86)
Staff r-ecomended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A
motion was made to defer the rezoning issue to the March 25,
1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(3-25-86)
The applicant, -Carolyn 'Ulmer, was present. There were no
objectors. Ms. Ulmer requested that the item be withdrawn
from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the
request without prejudice. The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.