Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . <br /> Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission had extensive discussion on <br /> the density issue and was a prime area of concern. He noted the <br /> Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan recently adopted did indicate that e <br /> maximum density should be the medium-density designation in that area, <br /> that is 20 units per acre. The Planning Commission also noted this <br /> was a small parcel which would make it more difficult to develop. He <br /> said City Council did not have the discretion to consider a variance. <br /> It could either accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, <br /> modify that recommendation to allow four units, or reject the rezoning <br /> request. However, he noted the latter two actions would require a <br /> joint Planning Commission/Council meeting. <br /> Mr. Obie wondered whether three or four units would be more suitable <br /> and appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Saul said his answer would <br /> be somewhat speculative. However, he noted the following items to <br /> consider: It is a small parcel, and any increase in units would <br /> increase other development such as number of parking spaces; because <br /> of the narrow portion of property at the rear and height limitation, it <br /> is limited to a one-story building. Adjacent to the parcel are low- <br /> density residences. He said all would be elements of concern about . <br /> how the property would be developed. <br /> There being no rebuttal offered, the pUblic hearing was closed. <br /> In response to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Saul said there is RG <br /> zoning existing to the east of Foch which was established in the early <br /> 1960's. The only recent RG rezoning is on property to the south, which <br /> was allowed prior to the adoption of the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan. e <br /> C.B. 1757--Authorizing rezoning from RA to RG-20/A property located between <br /> Pershing Street and Roosevelt Boulevard, on the west side of Foch <br /> Street was read by number and title only, there being no Councilor <br /> present requesting it be read in full. <br /> Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings supporting <br /> the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and <br /> minutes of July 17, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; that <br /> the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with <br /> unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered <br /> at this time. <br /> Mr. Haws said he would vote against the motion because he felt this <br /> was an area that the staff and Planning Commission had studieo to some <br /> extent and an area that could go downhill very easily. He thought the <br /> staff had made the right recommendation that it should be left as <br /> originally zoned. He did not feel there should be another unit placed <br /> in that area. <br /> Mr. Delay, in response to Mr. Haws, said it was obvious the City <br /> Council had to enforce the Code. He questioned Mr. Haws how he could <br /> resolve the density question where in the Bethel-Danebo Refinement <br /> Plan had called for medium density in this area. Mr. Haws responded <br /> he had looked at the area personally and he did not see how that e <br /> number of units could be placed on this parcel. <br /> 9/11/78--2 <br /> ~,~ <br />