Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />3~ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />1/22/68 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />f. Rezoning to R-2 Two-Family Residential area south of 37th between Kincaid and Potter, <br />Barnes - The Planning Commission recommended denial. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Lassen moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to deny the requested rero ning. . Motion carried. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />g. Rezoning to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial and R-3G Garden Apartment area at 1330 <br />Coburg Road, Cosgrave and Associates - The Planning Commission recommended denial <br />of the rezoning which would allow a service station si;lie.~and apartments. Councilman <br />Anderson asked if consideration was given to R-3G for the entire area. The Planning <br />Director said it was felt R-2 is the highest density desired in such areas to serve <br />as a buffer from major arterials. No action was taken. <br /> <br />Mr. Lassen moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to deny the requested rezoning. <br /> <br />Henry Camarot, attorney representing Frank and .Grace Rust, property owners, and Cosgrave and Associates, <br />displayed exhibits showing development of area surrounding the property petitioned for C-3P andcR-3G <br />zoning. He also presented affidavits citing other zone 'changes in the area, option taken by an oil <br />company for service station construction, history of rezoning requests on this property, other com- <br />mercial interests in the area~ etc. Mr. Camarot stated that the Rusts are denied use of the property <br />if it is restricted to residential use when that use is not feasible nor practical, and that the Rusts <br />are discriminated against when commercial rezoning is denied and other properties in the area have been <br />rezoned commercial. He said increase in vehicle traffic and noise make it impossible to use the prop- <br />erty for residential purposes, and that the character of the entire neighborhood has changed from <br />residential. Mr. Camarot stated his clients are willing to enter into any type of agreement imposing <br />limitations for rezoning the property. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />John R. Axtell, 2573 Sharon Way, objected to rezoning which would allo~ a service station on the prop- <br />erty. He said he was also concerned about children going to and from school pas~ this corner if a <br />service station is permitted. He suggested an R-2 zone for the property, or some other zone permitting <br />higher density than single-family residential. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />George Taylor, 2560 Sharon Way, and Leonard Frojen, 360 Van Avenue, also objected to C-3P zoning. <br /> <br />Mrs. Niven, Planning Commission chairman, explained the Planning Commission recommendation for denial <br />was because the Commission felt planned unit development of the property would be the best use, with <br />the corner portion used for buffering from adjacent commercial use. <br /> <br />The City Attorney said in view of material presented by Mr. Camarot, it might be well to continue the <br />hearing to allow the Council an opportunity to review the exhibits. Mr. Camarot had no objection to a <br />I continuation. He said he felt the corner portion of the property is not suitable for any type of <br />residential zoning - a bank branch would be acceptable, or perhaps parking on the corner lot. <br /> <br />.j <br /> <br />Mr. Lassen moved seconded by Mr. McNutt to continue this item to the February 5, 1968 Council meeting. <br />Motion carried. <br />I <br /> <br />3,.1 h. Rezoning to R-4 Multiple-family Residential area at 3015 South Willamette, Mayer _ <br />Tpe Planning Commission recommended denial. No action taken. <br /> <br />Mr. Lassen moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to deny the rezoning. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Mayer, owner of the property petitioned for rezoning, said he did not feel he could develop the <br />property properly under R-3G which the Planning Commission indicated it could recommend, that it would <br />take too much investment with no increase in return, and asked that the requested R-4 zoning be granted. <br /> <br />James Pearson, Planning Commission member, said the Planning Commission recommended denial because R-4 <br />wouilid constitute spot zoning since all adjacent properties carry R-3G density. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />A vote was taken on the motion to deny R-4 zoning, and motion carried. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />i. Rezoning to R-3 northwest corner of 15th and Lawrence, Wilson and Bettis - The Planning <br />Commission recommended denial. No action was taken. <br /> <br />Mr. Lassen moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to deny the request. <br /> <br />Mr. C. M. Stafford, 620 East 33id Avenue, said he owns property north of the area petitioned for rezon- <br />ing. He said the area generally needs new dwellings and asked that his property be included in the <br />petition and considered at another Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Director said this is one <br />of the first areas which will be considered when the General plan is updated - that it will be at least <br />a year and a half before the General Plan is completed and approved by various local jurisdictions. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A vote was taken on the motion to deny, and motion carried. <br /> <br />5 j. Variance in R-l zone at l440~ Chambers Street, Pengra Requested to permit use of <br />existing single-family dwelling for duplex for five years. The Planning Commission <br />recommended approval for a five-year period, the use to terminate absolutely at the <br />end of that time or earlier if there is any change of ownership of the property. No action. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />k. Variance in R-l zone at 480 East 32nd Avenue, Lilly - Requested to per~it a beauty <br />shop operation in a single-family dwelling. The Planning Commission recommended ap- <br />proval for f~ve years maximum and in compliance with regulations in proposed zoning <br />ordinance for home occupations. No action was taken. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Lassen moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to approve Items 2j and 2k of the Committee report. Motion <br />~ carried. 1/22/68 - 10 <br />