Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3380 Staff AnalysisAugust 28, 1979 Item No. 3 - Z-3380 Owner: Applicant: Request: Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: Applicable Regulations: Westover Hills Presbyterian Church Susan Fox Martin Rezone to "E" Apartment Apartment development unspecified "A" One family Lot 23, Westover Hills Addition Low - subject to excessive drainage 9,880 square feet f Vacant North - Single Family - Zoned "A" South - Commercial - Zoned "F" East - Single Family - Zoned "A" West - Church - Zoned "A" None Zoning Ordinance IN FACTUAL INFORMATION August 28, 1979 Item 3 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The applicant lists the desired use of the properties as apartments. No specific information is available. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLAN The plan for the area indicates that it will remain low density residential over the long term. The single nonresidential use in the area created quite a stir when it was introduced some years back. The proposed zoning is not compatible with the anticipated uses in the area. 3. EFFECT ON E14VIRONS Under the proposed zoning approximately sixteen apartment units could theoretically be constructed on this site. It is doubtful that anywhere close to that number could actually be built. However, even half that number would likely have significant impact on the area. Traffic flow at this location is somewhat hazardous at the present, and one or two more curb cuts could produce serious effects, particularly with the anticipated number of new cars introduced to the area. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION Some neighbors have expressed concern over the proposal. Staff is unaware of what neighborhood action will result at this time. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES No particular fiscal impacts are likely. August 28, 1979 Item No. 3 - Continued 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS Requested zoning is out of context for the neighborhood. While there is at least one apartment nearby, it does seem that requested zoning which is normally reserved for high rase type of development may be excessive. Staff, having viewed the site, believe that single family development of the property is unlikely because of land development costs-, yet the property is not of sufficient size to warrant the City's highest density apartment zoning either. Legally, a charge of spot zoning may be offset by the "F" Commercial zoning adjacent to the southeast. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been expressed. 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATION As expressed in Item 3 above, traffic near the intersection at McKinley and Pine Valley can be of some concern. No right-of-way issues prevail. ANALYSIS: Staff is concerned with the high intensity zoning requested more than the thought that this property will not remain zoned for single family. No specific development proposal has been presented to Staff regarding this case, so many possible concerns are not clear. The property itself shows that single family development is not likely to occur because of costs, as considerable fill work will have to precede development. On the other hand, Staff believes that the neighborhood dictates that low density be retained at this location. The street system at this area cannot support a major increase in turning movements so near to an intersection which can already be considered problematical. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff recommends that the property be rezoned to "C" Two Family. COMMISSION ACTION The applicant was present and stated that they had requested "E" Apartment because of the lot configuration, but that they would willingly accept "C" Two Family as recommended by the Staff. Several neighbors were present expressing their concern about the 4 . 1 August 28, 1979 Item No. 3 - Continued apartment zoning which had been requested. After a brief discussion, the Commission moved to approve the request as filed. The motion failed: 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. Mr. Mathews abstained. A substitute motion was made to recommend rezoning of the property to "C" Two Family District. The motion passed: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 abstaining. Mr. Mathews and Mr. Adams abstained.