Mapping Issues 012802MAPPING ISSUES ADDENDUM JANUARY 28, 2002
E~,sung use ~e~ues~ea ~nange ~ateg~ A~a~ysis ~ecommenaation
Oak Street NR-3 Property has been a Many of the properties within this Although NRMU-12 is Remain MF-1.
MF-1 to ~re~i ~ iQ daycare for many years area are currently zoned MF- 1 or consistent with the
NR-3 now~a would like to be 2F. The NR-3 was placed on this existing zoning and
1 5 rri~ maintained as a historical A area at the request of the City existing conditions. No
building with lawyers' Council. The proposed NR-3 is a change per Council policy.
offices. Request change reduction in intensity over existing
to NRMU-12. zoning.
Oak Street ~ w l,J ~ ty NR-3 Would like to have a City Council zoned this property to Although NRMU-12 is Remain MF-1.
between ~ ~ ~ re ~nd~ zoning classification that NR-3 to protect existing consistent with the
Marietta and matched the current A neighborhood. The proposed NR-3 existing zoning and
3 166 Bradley ~ rh ~ ~ii classification, is a reduction in intensity over existing conditions. No
existing zoning., change per Council policy.
~reviu u ii
2309 Hinkle NR-3 Would like this area to be NR-3 between two areas of Although NRMU-12 is Changed to proposed
~ii C ~ i~ NRMU-12 to match the NRMU-12. Staff recommends compatible to adjacent zoning as shown on the
6 70 North and South Zoning A change to NRMU-12. This would zoning to the north and zoning map at the time of
be an increase of intensity. But south. No change per the joint public hearing
compatible to adjacent property. Council policy, with P&Z.
Sherman Bac~ ~arc~! i~ E isti~gNei ~rho~ NRMU / Property currently has Council consensus was to keep the No Change per Council Changed to proposed
Drive north va NR-3 split zoning would like remainder of this property as NR-3 policy zoning as shown on the
of Piggly ~l~g She all of property to be as it backs up to single family to the zoning map at the time of
Wiggly NRMU to be able to north, the joint public hearing
develop it. The property owner along the with P&Z.
~ial frontage on Sherman Drive now
32D, ~trucmreg understands the NRMU zoning
classification.
7 46B, A Third property owner feels that
159D NRMU allows more uses than the
GR.
Staff recommends that a limitation
on lot size (10 acres) in addition to
an SLIP be placed on multi-family
development in the NRMU district
(L(4).
A = Significant increase or decrease in zoning. (No Change per Councilpolicy)
C = Justified Correclions. (Change)
B = Zoning change that necessitates Comprehensive Plan amendment. (No Change per Councilpolicy)
D = Small increase or decrease in zoning (maximum of a two district jump) (Consider Change)
MAPPING ISSUES ADDENDUM JANUARY 28, 2002
E~,sung use ~e~ues~ea ~nange ~ateg~ A~a~ysis ~ecommenaation
Bonnie Brae i~hb rh d ~nter NR-3 Requests NCR 12 to The property owners want zoning Existing development to Changed to proposed
North ho~ st~d ~ isti~i~ ~ d conform to zoning that would be in line with the the north is developed at zoning as shown on the
proposed for adjoining property to the south (NCR-12). approximately 6 units to zoning map at the time of
property and to be more The residents surrounding the the acre currently mapped the joint public hearing
compatible with the property would like for it to as NR-3, but has been with P&Z.
neighborhood. Our develop as single family. Currently revised to NR-6 as a
property has been placed zoned Agriculture (A) the area was mapping error. The
in NR3 by error. Does designated as a possible location requested NRMU-12
1, 2, 31, not believe anyone would for a neighborhood center with zoning would be a
57, 71, have purposely singled densities decreasing towards the transition between
8 91,98, out our property for A north from University Drive. Any existing uses to the north
107, devaluation not required upgrade in zoning is an increase in and proposed NRMU-12
116, of adjoining owners. If existing intensity. Comments 31, to the south. Prior to
117 this change is not made 57, 71, 91, 107, 116 & 117 are combining the NR and
now, will have to seek opposed to the request. NCR districts, this would
changes through a have been a 2-step
lengthy, costly processed increase (Category D), and
not required of recommended by staff,
neighboring landowners, however, the request now
Asking for equity, constitutes a significant
increase therefore, no
change per Council policy.
The Lakes ~ al~ ~a ~ PD / Property owner would Proposed request is a moderate No Change per Council Changed to Category D.
of Sundown ~nt~ ~ ~ting RCR- 1, like to property to be ~ncrease of intensity over the policy
Ranch ~ i~hb~rh~d ~rLfiii NR-3, under RCC-D NRMU-12 existing PD.
17 169 (Unicom RCC-D, , NR-2 and NR-4 A
Lake)
Hills of ~an~ Ne~hb~rh~ nter NCR-4 Property is on US 377 The parcel on U377 has been Prior to combining the Changed to proposed
Argyle and would like zoning of requested to allow retail. Council districts this would have zoning as shown on the
NCR-12 to allow for decided to reduce the zoning from been a small increase that zoning map at the time of
18 15 commercial use. A NCR-12 to NCR-4. NCR-4 is an staff could not support. No the joint public hearing
~ncrease of intensity over existing Change per Council policy with P&Z.
Agricultural zoning.
A = Significant increase or decrease in zoning. (No Change per Councilpolicy)
C = Justified Corrections. (Change)
B = Zoning change that necessitates Comprehensive Plan amendment. (No Change per Councilpolicy)
D = Small increase or decrease in zoning (m,xximum of a two district jump) (Consider Change)
MAPPING ISSUES ADDENDUM JANUARY 28, 2002
E~,sung use ~e~ues~ea ~nange ~ateg~ A~a~ysis ~ecommenaation
SE comer NR-2 NRMU Same comment as item # 29. NRMU designation Changed to proposed
University granted by Council 01-09- zoning as shown on the
and 02. zoning map at the time of
58 189 Nottingham A the joint public hearing
with P&Z.
North of S~ an~ G ~i~hb~rh~ C~er~ NR-2 NRMU Although more intense No change at this time. Changed to proposed
Windsor development on Bonnie Brea in this zoning as shown on the
West of area is likely, the NRMU zoning map at the time of
61 192 Bonnie Brae A designation may be to intense given the joint public hearing
the proximity to North Latkes Park with P&Z.
and SF development to the west.
A = Significant increase or decrease in zoning. (No Change per Councilpolicy)
C = Justified Corrections. (Change)
B = Zoning change that necessitates Comprehensive Plan amendment. (No Change per Councilpolicy)
D = Small increase or decrease in zoning (m,xximum of a two district jump) (Consider Change)