Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4355 Staff AnalysisNovember 13, 1984 Item No. 21 - Z-4355 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Annie Holland Dennis White 10422 Chicot Road (Chicot and Mabelvale Cutoff NW Corner) Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Eating Place Size: 1.18 acres + Existing Use: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property for a fast food eating establishment. Being located at the intersection of the two arterials, the rezoning and proposed use are appropriate for the location. The northeast and the southwest corners of the intersection are already zoned "C-3" and the west side of Chicot north of this property for some distance is also zoned "C-3." 2. The site is flat and occupied by two residential structures and an accessory building. 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 reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The property was annexed into the City as part of the South Central Island. November 13, 1984 Item No. 21 - Continued 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the northwest corner of Chicot and Mabelvale'for commercial development, and staff supports the "C-3" request. Approval of this rezoning will leave a single "R-2" tract on the west side of Chicot between Mabelvale and Morris Drive to the north. It is anticipated that in the future this probably will be considered for rezoning. There are no outstanding issues or concerns that have to be addressed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: '. Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. November 13, 1984 Item No. 21 - Z-4355 Owner: Annie Holland Applicant: Dennis White Location: 10422 Chicot Road (Chicot and Mabelvale Cutoff NW Corner) Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Eating Place Size: 1.18 acres + Existing Use: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property for a fast food eating establishment. Being located at the intersection of the two arterials, the rezoning and proposed use are appropriate for the location. The northeast and the southwest corners of the intersection are already zoned "C-3" and the west side of Chicot north of this property for some distance is also zoned "C-3." 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The site is flat and occupied by two residential structures and an accessory building. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. There are no legal issues. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The property was annexed into the City as part of the'South Central Island. November 13, 1984 Item No. 21 - Continued 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the northwest corner of Chicot and Mabelvale for commercial development, and staff supports the "C-3" request. Approval of this rezoning will leave a single "R-2" tract on the west side of Chicot between Mabelvale and Morris Drive to the north. It is anticipated that in the future this probably will be considered for rezoning. There are no outstanding issues or concerns that have to be addressed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.