Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4240 Staff AnalysisJuly 24, 1984 Item No. C - Z-4240 Owner: Jim Shue Applicant: Paul W. Davenport Location: Cedar Hill Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Size: 1.0 acre + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Park, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "R-5" to permit four multifamily units. Because no specific plans have been submitted, so the type or style of unit is unknown. The applicant has suggested that units are to be condominiums. The site is located in an area that has mixed land use and zoning patterns with the primary land use being single family. There are some multifamily projects with "R-5" zoning in the neighborhood to the southwest and southeast of this site. This tract is part of a subdivision that has been developed only for detached single family residences and that use should be continued. The site has a stronger relationship to the single family use than to the multifamily developments and "R-5" zoning should not be permitted at this location on Cedar Hill Road. Because of the property's physical characteristics, it appears that it lends itself more toward a single family unit than a multifamily project. 2. The site is heavily wooded and slopes up from Cedar Hill Road to the back of the lot. It is possible that a multifamily development would require substantial site modification. This would detract from the appearance of the site. The physical Payout of the tract should dictate the type of development suitable for the property. July 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. (The applicant has not provided this office with the necessary right-of-way agreement.) 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position, but the, staff has received some calls from nearby residents opposing the the request. They are concerned about the traffic on Cedar Hill Road and the type of development proposed. The residents want the property to remain single family. It has been mentioned that there are possible deed restrictions on the subdivision restricting the property to single family use. The entire subdivision was part of an old urban renewal project that expired a few years back. 7. The request is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan which identifies the property for single family use. The staff's position is that the property should remain single family and not be rezoned. Also: if the Bill of Assurance does, in fact, restrict the property to single family use and then that takes precedence until an amendment is made to it. The approval of this request would extend "R-5" zoning to the north and create an undesirable zoning pattern. The zoning is not compatible with the residential development that the property abuts to the south and the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984) The applicant had requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984) The applicant had requested a deferral. A motion to defer the item to July 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. This was the applicant's second request for a deferral. July 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 24, 1984) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. The applicant had not mailed the required notices, nor had made any contact with the staff. The Commission voted to withdraw the item from the agenda. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. June 26, 1984 Item No. E - Z-4240 Owner: Jim Shue Applicant: Paul W. Davenport Location: Cedar Hill Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Size: 1.0 acre + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Park, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "R-5" to permit four multifamily units. Because no specific plans have been submitted, so the type or style of unit is unknown. The applicant has suggested that units are to be condominiums. The site is located in an area that has mixed land use and zoning patterns with the primary land use being single family. There are some multifamily projects with "R-5" zoning in the neighborhood to the southwest and southeast of this site. This tract is part of a subdivision that has been developed only for detached single family residences and that use should be continued. The site has a stronger relationship to the single family use than to the multifamily developments and "R-5" zoning should not be permitted at this location on Cedar Hill Road. Because of the property's physical characteristics, it appears that it lends itself more toward a single family unit than a multifamily project. 2. The site is heavily wooded and slopes up from Cedar Hill Road to the back of the lot. It is possible that a multifamily development would require substantial site modification. This would detract from the appearance of the site. The physical layout of the tract should dictate the type of development suitable for the property. June 26, 1984 Item No. E - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. (The applicant has not provided this office with the necessary right-of-way agreement.) 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position, but the staff has received some calls from nearby residents opposing the the request. They are concerned about the traffic on Cedar Hill Road and the type of development proposed. The residents want the property to remain single family. It has been mentioned that there are possible deed restrictions on the subdivision restricting the property to single family use. The entire subdivision was part of an old urban renewal project that expired a few years back. 7. The request is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan which identifies the property for single family use. The staff's position is that the property should remain single family and not be rezoned. Also: if the Bill of Assurance does, in fact, restrict the property to single family use and then that takes precedence until an amendment is made to it. The approval of this request would extend "R-5" zoning to the north and create an undesirable zoning pattern. The zoning is not compatible with the residential development that the property abuts to the south and the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984) The applicant had requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984) The applicant had requested a deferral. A motion to defer the item to July 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. This was the applicant's second request for a deferral. May 29, 1984 Item No. 14 - Z-4240 Owner: Jim Shue Applicant: Paul W. Davenport Location: Cedar Hill Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Size: 1.0 acre + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Park, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to 11R-5" to permit four multifamily units. Because no specific plans have been submitted, so the type or style of unit is unknown. The applicant has suggested that units are to be condominiums. The site is located in an area - that has mixed land use and zoning patterns with the primary land use being single family. There are some multifamily projects with "R-5" zoning in the neighborhood to the southwest and southeast of this site. This tract is part of a subdivision that has been developed only for detached single family residences and that use should be continued. The site has a stronger relationship to the single family use than to the multifamily developments and 11R-5" zoning should not be permitted at this location on Cedar Hill Road. Because of the property's physical characteristics, it appears that it lends itself more toward a single family unit than a multifamily project. 2. The site is heavily wooded and slopes up from Cedar Hill Road to the back of the lot. It is possible that a multifamily development would require substantial site modification. This would detract from the appearance of the site. The physical layout of the tract should dictate the type of development suitable for the property. May 29, 1984 Item No. 14 - Z-4240 - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. (The applicant has not provided this office with the necessary right-of-way agreement.) 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position, but the staff has received some calls from nearby residents opposing the the request. They are concerned about the traffic on Cedar Hill Road and the type of development proposed. The residents want the property to remain single family. It has been mentioned that there are possible deed restrictions on the subdivision restricting the property to single family use. The entire subdivision was part of an old urban renewal project that expired a few years back. 7. The request is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan which identifies the property for single family use. The staff's position is that the property should remain single family and not be rezoned. Also: if the Bill of Assurance does, in fact, restrict the property to single family use and then that takes precedence until an amendment is made to it. The approval of this request would extend "R-5" zoning to the north and create an undesirable zoning pattern. The zoning is not compatible with the residential development that the property abuts to the south and the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTOIN: The applicant had requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. A - July 24, 1984 Item No. C - Z-4240 Owner: Jim Shue Applicant: Paul W. Davenport Location: Cedar Hill Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Size: 1.0 acre + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Park, Zoned 11R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "R-5" to permit four multifamily units. Because no specific plans have been submitted, so the type or style of unit is unknown. The applicant has suggested that units are to be condominiums. The site is located in an area that has mixed land use and zoning patterns with the primary land use being single family. There are some multifamily projects with "R-5" zoning in the neighborhood to the southwest and southeast of this site. This tract is part of a subdivision that has been developed only for detached single family residences and that use should be continued. The site has a stronger relationship to the single family use than to the multifamily developments and "R-5" zoning should not be permitted at this location on Cedar Hill Road. Because of the property's physical characteristics, it appears that it lends itself more toward a single family unit than a multifamily project. 2. The site is heavily wooded and slopes up from Cedar Hill Road to the back of the lot. It is possible that a multifamily development would require substantial site modification. This would detract from the appearance of the site. The physical layout of the tract should dictate the type of development suitable for the property. July 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. (The applicant has not provided this office with the necessary right-of-way agreement.) 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position, but the staff has received some calls from nearby residents opposing the the request. They are concerned about the traffic on Cedar Hill Road and the type of development proposed. The residents want the property to remain single family. It has been mentioned that there are possible deed restrictions on the subdivision restricting the property to single family use. The entire subdivision was part of an old urban renewal project that expired a few years back. 7. The request is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan which identifies the property for single family use. The staff's position is that the property should remain single family and not be rezoned. Also: if the Bill of Assurance does, in fact, restrict the property to single family use and then that takes precedence until an amendment is made to it. The approval of this request would extend "R-5" zoning to the north and create an undesirable zoning pattern. The zoning is not compatible with the residential development that the property abuts to the south and the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984) The applicant had requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984) The applicant had requested a deferral. A motion to defer the item to July 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. This was the applicant's second request for a deferral. July 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 24, 1984) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. The applicant had not mailed the required notices, nor had made any contact with the staff. The Commission voted to withdraw the item from the agenda. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.