|
<br />zones. He noted that improvements are just now coming to the area which will make these
<br />properties suitable for commercial development. Mr. Baitis recited his experience of
<br />applying for a building permit for his commercially-zoned property. He said he was told _
<br />a buildir;g permit would not be issued ~ec~use of ~he Planning Co~mission' sconsid~ration ,_
<br />of rezonlng. He wpndered whether ~ bUlldlng permlt, could be denled under ~hose Clrcum- - .
<br />stances.
<br />
<br />Bii DeZeeuw~ 2455 Frontier Drive, said he was advised by the Planning Commission to
<br />delay development of property he purchased for future investment.
<br />
<br />Others opposing the proposed rezoning were Louie Patton, 1190 Echo Hollow Road;
<br />J. H. Sorensen, 4300 Avalon Street; Mrs. James Brower, 1191 Echo Hollow Road. Their
<br />opposition was based on the belief that the commercial zoning. would result in 'higher
<br />land value, development in the area has progressed to the point where re~idential de-
<br />velopment would not be desirable, leaving the one existing store property in commercial
<br />zoning would constitute spot zoning, ~onsideration should be given to invest~ents made
<br />on the basis of commercial zoning.
<br />
<br />Public hearing was closed.
<br />
<br />Jim Saul, planner, reviewed the Planning Commission'~ position"in .initiatingand recom-
<br />mending the RA zoning. He said that after annexation to the City and since the com-
<br />mercial zone was ,applied a General Plan. has been adopted dealing with the issue of
<br />criteria for commercial centers and how they would relate to surrounding areas,. Stan~ ...
<br />dards have been developed for neighborhood commercial development. Also, the Murphy 'I'
<br />rezoning to residential use, referred to in testimony, fragmented the commercially- ' .
<br />zoned properties lying along Echo Hollow Road. Mr. Saul said the current:..rezo~ing
<br />proposal was reviewed with the City Attorney's office for evaluation under the Fasano
<br />decision with the opinion from the Attorney stating there aresubstant,ial .legal:questions
<br />whether-:.:that decision could be applied in a request for, zon.i;ng to lighter use . The
<br />Fasano decision, according to the Attorney, dealt primarily with zoning to a more in-
<br />tensive use. "
<br />
<br />Mr-;Saul noted review of the rezoning proposal for conformity to':.:the General Plan which
<br />was set forth in staff notes and, ,Commission, minutes" copies of which ,wer,e mailed to
<br />Commission and Council members and to interested residents in the Echo Hollow Road area.
<br />So far as showing public need, Mr. Saul said the Comm~ssion felt if General Plan recom-
<br />mendations for clustered shopping centers were. to,be achieved there was need to review
<br />commercial zoning in the City, and this commercial property in particular in relation-
<br />ship to surrounding residential area. Other commercial zoning available ,in the general
<br />area was also taken into consideration in proposing to make this a residential zone.
<br />Mr. Saul added that the commercial zonLng after. annexation, to the City was accomplished
<br />as a part of zoning the entire Bethel/Danebo area without detailed study of individual
<br />neighborhoods, existing County zoning forming the basis for City zoning. He said the
<br />property has never been assessed at commercial value. Nor has ~he Commission felt ,spot ~~ .
<br />zoning an issue - the ,existing store is not to be ,included, in ,this rezoning. and"the IJ
<br />residential rezoning does not constitute spot zoning. He concluded by referring again .
<br />'to existing commercial zoning within 250:0; feet of ,theproperties:;l,p. -question.
<br />
<br />Manager confirmed that a. numb,erof property owners appeared when the Murphy rezoning
<br />request was before the Council and expressed their concern about~the effect of that
<br />action on their own properties. They indicated they did not obj~ct to that rezoning
<br />so long as it did not affect their own properties. He felt in view of staff's comments
<br />at this meet ing , it might be fair to allow rebuttal. " " , 'i,',
<br />
<br />David James said staff presentation was based on conclusion, not on facts..,.: He ,felt the I
<br />Council should have before it more factual data on.whic~ to;base its decision, - whether
<br />the proposed zoning does conform to the 1990 General Plan, whether there is a public
<br />need in this area regardless of what is concluded to be the, public need ,over the entire
<br />City.. He felt more background information should be made available with regard to the
<br />change of that neighborhood and its requ~rements for services.
<br />
<br />--, . .. ..
<br />
<br />Louie Patton commented on, the testimony of citizens at the Mu~phy rezoning hearing
<br />wIth regard to its effect on adjacent properties. He added that it was his u~derstand-
<br />ing that Mr. Murphy has since sold that property. Mr. Baitis called attention to the
<br />c lack of favorable comment at any hearing on tpis proposal, all those speaking at any ~
<br />~ time have been opposed to the change. Mr. DeZeeuw remarke~that in view of the feeling ~
<br />that there is too much commercially-zoned land in that area there should have been ~
<br />less acreage added at the time the commercial, zone was, applied to the Fish prop,erty at
<br />Echo Hollow and Barger.
<br />
<br />Councilman McDonald asked if any mention of this rezoning was made at the time improve-
<br />ment of Echo Hollow Road itself was considered. He also, asked whether the Building De-
<br />partment has authority to advise citizens with regard to development of their properties
<br />
<br />
<br />~~~ 7/23/73 - 2
<br />
|