Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3431 Staff AnalysisJanuary 29, 1980 Item No. 7 - Z-3431 Owner: Hickory Hills Development Company Applicant: Tom Hodges Request: Rezone to "MF -6" Multifamily District Purpose: Condominium Apartments Existing Zoning: 'R-2" Single Famzly� Location: rots 24-28, Hickory Hills &d.dition kj Site Characteristics: Low, Sparsely Wooded Size: 7.616 I�r f January 29, 1980 Item No. 7 - Z-3431 Owner: Hickory Hills Development Company Applicant: Tom Hodges Request: Rezone to "MF -6" Multifamily District Purpose: Condominium Apartments Existing Zoning: 'R-2" Single Famzly� Location: rots 24-28, Hickory Hills &d.dition kj Site Characteristics: Low, Sparsely Wooded Size: 7.616 Acres + Existing Land Use: Vacant Abutting Land Use North - Vacant and Zoning: - Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant Zoned "R-2" Zoning History: None Applicable Regulations: Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations Note: On January 17, Mr. Hodges contacted the Planning Department and requested formally that this case be deferred to the February meeting of the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that deferral. FACTUAL INFORMATION January 29, 1980 Item 7 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND Though no specific statement has been made, it is assumed that changing market demands have brought forth this proposal. The present trend in housing demands seems to be tilting towards attached single family dwelling preferences. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS This quadrant of the City has traditionally been scheduled for single family development at lower than normal density. In fact, this proposed development would necessitate the replatting of a portion of a previously platted, large tract, single family subdivision.- At the density proposed, the number of dwellings within this project would nearly equal the number spread over the remainder of the addition. The higher density, though low by multifamily standards, is approximately double the anticipated development density established for the area. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS No adverse environmental impacts are expected. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION No adverse comments have been received from neighbors. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No public service agency has made a negative recommendation. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON The Waste Water Utility has expressed grave concerns for its continuing ability to provide adequate sewer service. See the separate statement regarding the sewer problem. In addition, an engineer for the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has expressed concern about changes in development density subsequent to the design and completion of telephone service lines to these kinds of projects. While the spokesman admits that the company January 29, 1980 Item 7 - Continued will provide the required telephone service, he did want the Planning Commission to be aware that these changes do generate certain inefficiencies and poor public relations when existing service lines must be uprooted for replacement with lines of greater capacity. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES If any fiscal impacts were to be generated by this proposal, they would most assuredly be connected to the sewer issue. In this instance, the public would be asked to offset a fairly significant sewer demand while outside of the immediate service area. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS Without clear definition of what constitutes "spot zoning," it is possible that a case could be made that this request is sufficiently different from the surrounding uses to be considered such. However, the proposed use is residential, so clear arguments would likely be impractical inasmuch as the the intended use is attached single family dwellings as opposed to apartments. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed. 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY No traffic or right-of-way issues attend this case. ANALYSIS This request represents a significant change in the proposed development of the northwest residential area. While it is expected that the same level of quality will be maintained, the key issue is shifting demands upon the public utility services. The sewer system was designed to accommodate low density, single family development, and -while this request would not top the present capacity of the system, Waste Water Utility engineers tell us that increasing the development rights of one property owner, necessarily reduces the development rights of another. The position expressed by the engineers is being questioned. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral. January 29, 1980 Item 7 - Continued COMMISSION ACTION: The.Commission moved to defer consideration of this item.to February 26. The motion was passed: 10 ayes, 0 noes.