09/13/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ Mr. Gleaves felt the two parcels must be considered together. e Access would be to Tax I~t 2100; Lot 2000 would have no access from public streets. Sewers cannot be provided to Lot 2000 without pumping. He said a full range of public services are available if considered as one parcel. Mr. Gleaves submits that the City has a duty to properly zone property afer annexation. He said a Planning Commission majority acknowledged that low density residential was not proper for the property. He submits the plan does not dictate a particular use. He acknowledged the plan diagram would indicate low density residential. but there is not a detailed plan covering small parcels such as this. The strategically located property falls within an area which should be considered for C-2 under the code, and unless rezoning is granted, Lot 2000 cannot be used for any useful purpose. Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission took a position that a zone Change would not be in accordance with the 1990 Plan, that low density residential is recommended for this section. A second element of the Planning Commission's decision i nvo I ved pubh c need. Mr. Saul said the Council has completed rezoning of 55 acres on the south portion of Good Pasture Island. Some of that is vacant and available for the type contemplated in the proposed zone change. ~1r . Gleaves rebutted that a C-2 commercial district should be e near a major intersection or a major thoroughfare. When property cannot be utilized as is, there is no basis to say this particular quadrant is not appropriate for commercial development; and the Planning Commission has said close residential development should have facilities to go along with it. Mr. Saul thought it correct that the Planning Commission did question whether or not, considered in abstract, RA would be right on Lot 2000. But a variety of factors were not discussed in the hearing since it dealt with 3 specific request for a specific zone. The range of consideration the Planning Commission considered did not figure in the recommendation were whether or not it would he feasihle to consider Lot 2000 as adjunct to Lot 2100 at low density level, and also explicit mention by a Planning Commission memher on Whether it may be necessary to consider something in the medium density area. The third consideration was whether RP would be appropriate. Those all were not explored because of the presence of a Specific request. As to other alternatives, Mr. Saul said one possibility is RP. Again it is misleading to talk about one parcel in isolation frOm the rest, he said. Mr. Ke 11 er moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to uphold denial, including findings of Commission as entered into the record. e 4.38 Minute 9/13/76 -- 3