HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3588 Staff AnalysisNovember 11, 1980
Item No. 8 - Z-3588
Owner:
Candyce
Jean Jones
Applicant:
Candyce
Jean Jones
Request:
Rezone
to "R-5" Urban
Residence
Purpose:
Condominium
Development
Existing Zoning:
"R-3" Single
Family
Location:
Lot 18,
Block 14, Midland Hills
Addition
(See Map)
Site Characteristics:
Vacant,
Level - Poor Access
Size:
11,000
Square Feet +
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Abutting Land Use
North -
Single Family
and Zoning:
Zoned "R-3"
South -
Single Family and Duplex
Zoned "R-3" and "R-4"
East -
Single Family
Zoned "R-3"
West -
Single Family
Zoned "R-3"
Zoning History: None
Applicable Regulations: Zoning ordinance
FACTUAL INFORMATION
Item 8
November 11, 1980
1. NEED OR DEMAND
The applicant wishes to construct a small condominium
project on this property, probably three to four within
a single building.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS
This area is predominately single family with a few
scattered duplexes and apartments. Plans dealing with
this area call for the retention of its basic
character, and this proposal would have to be
considered incompatible with those plans.
3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS
Because of the limited access to the site, construction
work and subsequent movements to and from the finished
dwellings may cause some upset to the neighboring
properties. No major change in topography or drainage
patterns is expected.
4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION
Neighboring residents are upset about the prospect of
this property's development. Concerns about
disruption, traffic, parking and perceived devaluation
of other property values has been expressed in calls
and letters. A large turnout is expected.
5. PUBLIC SERVICES
No adverse comments have been received.
6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON
No adverse comments have been received.
7. EFFECT ON FINANCES
No particular public financial impacts are expected.
8. LEGAL/REASONABLE
Legally this represents a request for spot zoning;
however, it can be argued that other similar
residential densities exist in the neighborhood. The
lot which probably should never have been platted is
in a peculiar location. It has limited access and an
unusual physical shape, and the expressed desire to
November 11, 1980
Item No. 8 - Continued
construct a higher density development on it seems
unreasonable.
9. NO STANDARDS OF' QUALITY
No standards have been addressed.
10. TRAFFIC AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
As mentioned before, traffic access seems
problematical. There are three public rights-of-way
reaching to the property; however, none of these is
physically improved and all are very narrow alleys.
ANALYSIS:
Summarizing the above information, staff is concerned about
the access., the density and the disruption to the
neighborhood while it appears that it would be impossible to
deny a building permit for a single family dwelling on this
lot, the zoning for a multifamily structure would seem to
create more lasting disruption because of the increased
trips which would be generated by the higher density unit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and there were some objectors.
The applicant asked that the request be withdrawn. The
Planning Commission moved to accept withdrawal of the
request. The motion was passed: 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.