HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4556 Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: November 19, 1985
2. Case No.: Z-4556
3. Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family District to
"R-5" Multifamily District
4. Location: Vernon Place Apartments on Preston Drive
lying east of Chicot Road
5. Owner/Applicant: Henry Treece
6. Existing Status: Developed as Multifamily
7. Proposed Use: Make existing uses conform and upgrade
development.
8. Staff Recommendation: Approval as filed
9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval as filed
10. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 5 absent
11. Objectors: None
October 29, 1985
Item No. 10 - Z-4556
Owner: Various Owners
Applicant: Henry Treece
Location: Vernon Place (Cameron, Atkins and
Preston Drives)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "R-5" Urban Residence
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 4.0 acres
Existing Use: Multifamily (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Multifamily and Commercial, Zoned
"R-5" and Unclassified
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Vernon Place is made up entirely of multifamily units with
some of the lots zoned "R-5" and the remaining ones zoned
"R-2." The request is to rezone the nonconforming lot/units
to "R-5" and initiate a major upgrading of the project.
Over the years, certain buildings have fallen into disrepair
and have become an eyesore for the area. Because the
multifamily units have been in place for years, staff feels
the rezoning of the remaining lots will not have an impact
on the neighborhood and supports the request. The
rehabilitation of the project will be a positive step for
the area and should be strongly encouraged.
In addition to the rezoning, a request has been filed to
close the streets and make them a private street system.
This is also part of the effort to upgrade the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the 11R-5" rezoning as
requested.
October 29, 1985
Item No. 10 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
on a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent.