|
<br />..3
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />1/12/70
<br />
<br />his property was adjacent to property purchased by the neighborhood grocery, and that he
<br />feared it too would be rezoned.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. Walter Miller said it was his understanding the burden of proof to show a need for
<br />rezoning was with those requesting the change. He felt sufficient proof had not been
<br />shown, and he felt the Planning Commission was not being consistent.
<br />
<br />Mr. Vernon Gleaves, attorney, said he represented Dale Fisher, 2105 Fairmount, and that
<br />they objected to the rezoning, feeling property south of 19th should remain residential.
<br />
<br />Any increase in density would create a traffic problem. A mistake had been made by
<br />allowing a service station on the corner, and it should not be compounded by this rezoning.
<br />
<br />Mr. Everett Smith, 2015 University, was concerned with the amount of land already zoned
<br />commercial, and felt the clinic could be built elsewhere.
<br />
<br />Mr. Karl Johannessen, 1284 East 21st, Pauline Whitney, 1970 Columbia, objected to rezoning
<br />in this area.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Mrs. Urquhart asked to clarify, a rumor that all property wou~_c;1.. b~.._<?<?~,~r<;:~?~ on this
<br />street. She said Mr. Hodges had bought the property adjacent to his store, and this had
<br />apparently started this rumor.
<br />
<br />There was further discussion of best use of the property and effect on the neighborhood.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. James Pearson, Planning Commission member, explained Planning Commission reasons for
<br />rezoning this property, and that it would provide a good buffer between the existing
<br />commercial property and the residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission felt the
<br />Conditional Use would provide controls which would make this development a real asset
<br />to the community. He explained a Planning Commission policy that uses the alley south
<br />of 19th Avenue as a boundary between commercial uses and siggle family residences. He
<br />explained there is a shortage of RG zoned property in the area, and that this decision
<br />was consistent with the policy of increasing density of land around the University.
<br />
<br />Mr. Charles Rhodaback, Planning Department staff, said the staff had recommended RG
<br />zoning, and felt the property should be used for multiple family housing. The staff
<br />was not in favor of the dental clinic.
<br />
<br />I'
<br />
<br />Mrs. Mary Krenk said she could understand a rezoning for multiple housing, but could
<br />see no need for a dental clinic here.
<br />
<br />There was Council discussion concerning action to be taken at this time.
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the rezoning be referred to the Planning
<br />Commission for a joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. McDonald explained that he
<br />was concerned with the conditional use, and felt discussion with the Planning Commission
<br />might clarify certain points.
<br />
<br />After Council discussion of the motion, a vote was taken. Mr. Williams, Mr. McDonald,
<br />and Mr. Teague voted in favor. Mr. Mohr, Mr$. Hayward, Mrs. Beal and Mr. Gribskov voted
<br />against. The motion failed.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />II
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />In answer to Mr. Teague, Mr. Pearson said the petitioners had accepted the Planning
<br />Commission suggestion of RG zoning with a conditional use to allow a dental clinic
<br />as a valid compromise. Use of the clinic would limit density of residential use, and
<br />create less traffic through the varied use. .The exterior appearance would be residential,
<br />and parking and landscaping would be controlled through the conditional use. The condi-
<br />tional use would give safeguards not available with RP zoning, 'and 'woulcr.elif!"linate many
<br />uses allowable in RP zoning, which the Commission felt not compatible with the neighborhood.
<br />Specific conditions have not been imposed by the Planning Commission, since only preliminary
<br />approval has been given. Any conditions suggested by the Council can be incorporated.
<br />
<br />--
<br />~r
<br />
<br />Mr. Gleaves said there is no procedure for preliminary approval of a conditional use
<br />permit, and this was the reason he had suggested a Planned Unit Development.
<br />
<br />After further Council discussion, Mr. Mohr moved that the Council defer action on the
<br />ordinance relating to this rezoning until plans are before them detailing mutually arrived
<br />at conditions.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams suggested that the Bill could be read, and held for final approval. Mayor
<br />Anderson agreed and said what the Council would be saying was that there was merit in
<br />the proposal, but the Council wanted to see the finished product. The City Attorney agreed.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr suggested that the Council change its order of business to hear Council Bill No.
<br />9043 at this time.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />...;t.~:?i--'~"~'" "-..--" ~_~__ _ ...
<br />~,;.;;_Coun~ir Bin No: 904;3,.CJ:1.ange of zone from R.l to RG on property located at the southeast
<br />, ~r - - . , ~.,~, ,-, .. - -
<br />corner of 19th'-Avenueand .Kgate - street was submitted the first time December 22, 1970 and held
<br />over to this meeting to be heard with the 'appeals from a conditional use of the property, on
<br />which a public hearing was called for this meeting, was submitted and read in full.
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be read the second time by council bill
<br />number only, with unanimous consent of the Council. Mobion carried unanimously and the bill was
<br />
<br />1/12/70 - 3
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|