Laserfiche WebLink
<br />E. M. .Matthews, 2935 Portland Street, objected to the multiple-family zoning, <br />saying apartment housing would lower property values. It was his understanding <br />that cost for construction of a cul-de-sac would be charged to abutting properties. <br />Manager explained that cul-de-sac construction was not required as a part of the <br />present recommendation. Mr.. Matthews requested construction of a fence between <br />his property and that on which rezoning is requested if apartment houses are built. <br />He felt that ,would prevent anticipated vandalism on his property. <br /> <br />.: <br /> <br />Harold Wald, 2973 Portland Street, also expressed opposition to the rezoning <br />and presented letters from other residents of the area objecting to apartment <br />construction on the basis that it would add traffic and there is ample multiple- <br />family housing in the area now. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed. <br /> <br />Council Bill No. 262 - Rezoning to R-2-4 SR area located on east side of <br />Portland Street between 29th/Avenue and 30th Avenue <br />was submitted and read by council bill .number and title only, -there being- <br />no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Campbell and Councilman Murray expressed a desire to view the property <br />in question. Jim Saul, planner, explained in answer to Mr. Murray that under the <br />R-2-4 zoning approximately nine units would be permitted on four contiguous parcels, <br />this in comparison to about 20 which,would have been allowed under the RG recom- <br />mended when the matter was previously before the Council. <br /> <br />.,; <br /> <br />Mrs. Wald requested that their property be fenced also, if the Matthews property <br />was to be fenced. Manager explained that the Council does have authority to re- <br />quire fences under the site review conditions if they are needed and desirable. <br /> <br />It was understood that C.B.262 would be held to give opportunity for Council <br />members to view the area under consideration. <br /> <br />2. Area at 1381 Bailey Hill Road (Cascade Steel Fabricators) RA to M~2 SR <br /> <br />-Rezonliui fromRA toH''M".;.2 SR areaOiocated at-13-STBidleyHili 'Roacf;-cascade--si:e~l - <br />Planning commission on December 27, 1971 reconunended approval, pending completion <br />i of contract with petitioner. That contract was completed May 1, 1973. It provides <br />. that proposed use of the property will be discontinued by December 31,1990 at <br />which time the use will revert to whatever is appropriate in accordance with the <br />then adopted General Plan. Proposed use at this time is to expand Steel Fabricators <br />building eastward. Commission felt there would be conflict between this heavy in-.' <br />dustrial use and adjacent R-2 and RA zones, but the heavy industrial use is in "'_, <br />existence and it seemed that an amortization period would best resolve the conflict. <br /> <br />Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Williams that public hearing be scheduled on the <br />. request at the May 29,1973 meeting., Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Comm <br />5/23/73 <br />/ <br />/Pub Hrng <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. ~, <br /> <br />Public hearing was held ..with no testimony presented. <br /> <br />Council Bill No. 263 - Rezoning to M-2 SR area located at 1381 Bailey Hill <br />Road was submitted and. read by council bill number <br />and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be <br />read in full. <br /> <br />Mrs.. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams tbat the bill be read the second time by <br />council bill' number only, with unanimous' consent of the Council, and that enact- <br />ment be consider~d at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was <br />read the second time by council bill number only. <br /> <br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final <br />passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye,ihebill was declared <br />passed and numbered 16795. <br /> <br />C. Plan Checking Fee <br />Copies of the proposed fee schedule for plan checking were previously distributed to~ <br />Council members. The fee is designed to cover the majority of City cost for reviewing <br />plans for conformance to building codes prior to granting building permits. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Council Bill No. 264 - Repealing Section 8.025(5) of City Code re: Plan <br />Checking Fee was read by council bill number and <br />title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read <br />in full. <br /> <br />Councilman McDonald asked for explanation of the procedure for initiating the plan <br />checking fee. Assistant Manager explained that terms of the Uniform Building Code <br /> <br />\CoS <br /> <br />5/29/73 - 2 <br />