10/26/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"""'IIIIl e 3G1 10/26/70 I Jordan, who will be working with the City Council, Housing Committee and other bodies on developing a legislative program. III. Zone Changes Recommended by Planning Commission at its meeting of October 6, 1970 : A. West of City View and south of Amazon Canal - Johnson and Cooke The, request was to change from RA to R-3 to allow apartment construction under FHA-236 Program. The Commission approved recommendation of change to R-2, subject to PUD procedures. Final reading of rezoning should be held until PUD is approved. The City Manager stated that, at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, the applicants were willing to accept R-2 rather than the requested R-3. There were no objections from neighbors to the R-2 zoning. Councilman McDonald questioned ownership of the property, as well as ' whether or not sufficient room would be left for the. City's future e arterial planning. The City Manager indicated the City was not certain of ownership of the property. He felt that the Planning Commission wouid not approve this action if it did not meet future city plan requirements, since development must follow PUD procedures. I Councilman Williams pointed out that 13th Avenue stops at this area. The proposal would elearly prevent ever extending this street. Public Works Director indicated there is an application on file for vacation of this street. No action was taken. Council action on Council Bill No. 9282 may be read on page "-- 17 of these minutes. -~ B. Northeast corner Coburg Road and Tomahawk, George F. Dobson - Rezoning was requested from R-l to R-2 to allow construction of deluxe apartments. The Commission recommended R-2, subject to PUD procedures, with'a limit of eight units. If a "site review" procedure is adopted as an amendment to the zoning ordinance before construction begins, the applicant will be allowed to develop under "site review" with a maximum of seven units. City Manager read the Commission recommendation, and pointed out that Item 6 on the committee agenda might appiy to this property, but this item was' removed at the request of the City Attorney's office for additional review. The City Attorney pointed out that PUD has a limit of eight units, while "site review" has a limit of seven units. Councilman Williams indicated he lives in this area, and there has been I little objection to the R-2 zoning. However, there was objection to the R-3 request. Mr. Williams also questioned the traffic flow. Bill Sugaya of the Planning Department indicated that the Traffic Engineer had requested the exit not be on Coburg Road. Mr. Williams questioned what would be done about Tomahawk Lane. Public Works Director indicated that th~Dugh the PUD procedure curbing e and sidewalks would be required. TQere was some discussion about right of way of property owners, and loc~~ion of sidewalks and curbs to provide better traffic handling. No action taken on this item. Council Action on Couhcil Bill No. 9283 may be read on Page" "'1d 7 of these minutes. " IV. Sign District Boundary Change (Planning Commission, October 6, 1970 - Oakway Mall from Integrated Neightborhood District to Highway Oriented District, except 100' at the southerly end. :' This includes all the area originally zoned commercial, and eliminates a problem with auxiliary signs such as S. 6, H. Green Stamps. I Councilman Williams questioned whether this covered Oakway Road or Coburg Road. City Manager said both sides of Coburg would be Highway Oriented and both sides of Oakway would be commercial. " " Council action on Council Bill No. 928ili, Amending Sign Code Section 2,lSign Standards by geographic areas (Ordinance No. 16086) may be read on Page 16 of these minutes. V. Recommended amendments to Sign Ordinance (Planning Commission, October 6, 1970) Provides for incidental signs in Pedestrian-Auto District e There was some discussion about the types of signs affected and their size. 10/26/70 - 4 ....