HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5177 Staff AnalysisMay 16, 1989
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
Name: Reck Road Conditional Use
Permit (Z-5177)
Location: The southeast corner of Bruno
and Reck Roads.
Owner/Applicant: Marvin and Ima Cazer/Mark Cazer
Proposal:
To place a one-story multi -sectional manufactured home
(1,344 +/- square feet) on 0.95 +/- acres of land that is
zoned "R-2."
Ordinance Design Standards:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a coil-ector street (Reck Road) and a
residential street (Bruno Road).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by single family located on three
sides with vacant land located to the east. The single
family structures are built and oriented in the
following ways: North - front yard relationship with
brick facade (3 houses); south - rear yard
relationship (1 house that fronts on West Road and has
a brick facade); and west - two houses with a front
yard relationship and one house with a side yard
relationship (brick and aluminum siding facade). The
Staff feels that the proposed type of housing and its
facade and treatment will not be compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing one access drive to Reck
Road and a two -car carport.
4. Screeninra and Buffers
The site contains a heavy stand of timber.
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
5. Analysis
The Staff has reservations about the compatibility of
this proposal (see Section #2). The proposed unit will
have an artificial log facade while the immediate
neighborhood is quite uniform in nature (brick and
aluminum siding). The applicant has also proposed a
pier foundation with an artificial vinyl "real rock"
underpinning. The vinyl underpinning does not meet
ordinance requirements (example - underpinning with
permanent materials/permanent foundation).
6. City Engineer Comments
1. Dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Reck Road
to meet collector street standards, and on Bruno
Road to residential street standards.
2. Dedicate a 25 foot radius at the intersection of
Reck and Bruno Roads.
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present but left prior to his item being
taken up by the Committee. The issue was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. There were two objectors
present. Mr. Burl Majors presented petitions of opposition
from the neighborhood. The Staff stated that the applicant
had apparently ceased pursuing the proposal and had not
provided proper documentation of notification. The
Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to deny
the application.