HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5097-B Staff AnalysisJune 15, 1993
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-50 7-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Deltic Farm and Timber Company
Joe D. White
Deltic North Slope - Various
Sites
Rezone from R-2, MF -6, MF -18,
0-2 and C-2 to R-2, MF -12, 0-3
and C-3.
Mixed Uses
126.6 acres
Vacant
SURRO=ING LAND ❑SE AND ZONING
North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 and 0-2
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2
West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 and C-3
TAFF ANALYSIS
This rezoning request, filed by Deltic Farm and Timber for
the "north slope" of the Chenal Valley development, is a
follow-up action to a plan amendment that was endorsed by
the Planning Commission in 1992. The sites in question were
initially rezoned in 1988, as part of an overall land use
and zoning plan for the north slope area. The 1992
amendment involved four specific areas and the proposed
rezoning are for the same locations. In addition to the
land use plan change, there was also a street plan amendment
which relocated a proposed arterial that will run from
Highway 10 to Chenal Parkway. (The amendments will be
forwarded to the Board of Directors at the same time as the
rezoning request.)
There is one area that includes a rezoning that was not part
of the 1992 recommended amendment. In the general vicinity
of Highway 10 and the new arterial, MF -12 has been requested
for approximately 28 acres. The proposed LMF site is
northwest of the arterial and adjacent to one of the 0-3
areas. MF -12 is a low density multifamily district, and
staff feels that it is an appropriate reclassification for
the location. A LMF area will be added to the plan
amendment if the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the MF -12.
June 15, 1993
ITEM O-0 97-B on .
Following is an acreage comparison of existing zoning and
what is being proposed for this request.
Existing Prgposed
Multi -Family 47.5 32.0
office 8.1 10.9
Commercial 24.5 23.3
,LANDUSE PLAN ELEMENT
The adopted plans are in conflict with the proposed
rezonings. However, the Commission has approved the plan
amendments to allow these rezonings. The plan amendments
have been held waiting for the rezonings. The proposed
rezoning is in agreement with the previous approved master
street plan and land use plan changes.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENaNTION
Staff recommends approval of all the rezonings as requested.
PLANNING COMMIS IDN ACTION:
(JUNE 15, 1993)
The application was represented by Jack McCray. There were
several other interested persons in attendance, including
Joe White, engineer for the Chenal development.
Ron Newman, Planning Manager, reviewed the Land Use Plan and
the Master Street Plan amendments, which the Planning
Commission endorsed in 1992. Mr. Newman told the Commission
that the rezoning action before them was a follow-up to a
plan amendment and both items would be forwarded to the
Board of Directors at the same time.
Jack McCray spoke and said he was representing Deltic Farm
and Timber, the owner. Mr. McCray made some brief comments
and said he or Joe white would be available to answer any
questions.
2
June 15, 1993
ITEM NO-- 3 Z 5097-H (Cont.) _
Gene Pfeifer, a property owner on the north side of Highway
10, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Pfeifer said that he
was representing a family group that has a substantial
landholding on the north side of Highway 10, which was zoned
for office and commercial uses. He went on to say that he
was concerned with the amount of commercial zoning at
Highway 10 and Chenal Parkway, and then discussed the
history of his zoning. Mr. Pfeifer indicated that he might
have to consider making some changes to the existing zoning
configuration and would probably be submitting a request in
the near future for some rezonings. Mr. Pfeifer
acknowledged that the intersection was a major node and some
of the lands were impacted by overhead power lines.
There was some discussion about the amount of commercial
zoning in the area and expansion of the node.
A motion was made to recommend approval of all the rezonings
as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay
and 2 absent. (NOTE: There were some comments made after
the vote about future rezoning requests in the area and
nonresidential zoning.)
3