HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3576 Staff AnalysisNovember 11, 1980
Item No. 3 - Z-3576
Owner:
Applicant:
Request:
Purpose:
Existing zoning:
Location:
Site Characteristics:
Size:
Existing Land Use:
Abutting Land Use
and Zoning:
Zoning History:
Applicable Regulations:
Gerald Johnson
Dick Vroman
Rezone to "MF -24" Multifamily
Multifamily Development
"R-2" Single Family
Northeast Corner of Fairview
and Woodland Heights Road
Wooded and Sloping
3 Acres +
Vacant
North - Single Family
Zoned "R-2"
South - Commercial and Vacant
Zoned "R-2"
East - Single Family
Zoned "R-2"
West - Single Family
Zoned "R-21'
None
Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances
FACTUAL INFORMATION
Item 3
November 11, 1980
1. NEED OR DEMAND
The applicant states the desire to construct "MF -24
Apartments" on this property.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS
The Suburban Development Plan shows this area for
continued single family development. There are two
nonconforming uses located to the south, but both have
already been denied zoning for conformity; therefore,
the die seems cast.
3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS
No particular environmental problems are anticipated.
4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION
Neighboring property owners have begun to express
opposition to this application
5. PUBLIC SERVICES
No adverse comments have been received.
6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON
The Wastewater Utility has express concern about its
ability to serve a development of this density. While
not actually within District 222, this property drains
into the Grassy Flat interceptor system, and this
development might tend to reduce District 222 capacity
from the receiving end.
7. EFFECT ON FINANCES
No particular financial impacts are expected.
8, LEGAL/REASONABLE
With the exception of the nonconforming uses cited
earlier, the surrounding land use is single family
residential. The proposed density is probably 12 to 15
times that of the surrounding area. There would also
be access problems, and on these bases staff feels that
the request is unreasonable.
November 11, 1980
Item No. 3 - Continued
9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY
No standard• have been addressed.
10. TRAFFIC AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
None of the streets providing access to the site are
capable of serving a residential development of this
scale. There are many problems with the skating rink
traffic already using these streets. The addition of
50 to 75 new residences at this location is untenable.
Rights-of-way will be required on both abutting
streets.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed zoning is out of phase with the area, with
surrounding land uses and with the Suburban Development
Plan. Access to the site is not well constructed, and the
development proposal will not 'significantly change the
facts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and there were several objectors
present. The applicant stated that the request for zoning
was based upon the location of the roller rink south across
the street and stated their willingness to accept a lower
density, provide a site plan of the proposed development and
to work with the neighboring property owners.
Charles Easley presented a petition of neighboring property
owners with 36 signatures and cited that the proposal, in
his opinion, was in conflict with the restrictive covenants
placed upon the subdivision of which this property is a
part.
After a lengthy discussion, the applicant agreed to withdraw
the application pending further discussions with neighboring
property owners and preparation of site plans. The
Commission moved to accept withdrawal of the request without
prejudice, whereby the applicant will be allowed to resubmit
at any time. The motion was passed: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent.