03/27/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Manager noted a petition signed by 82 residents of the immediate vicinity opposing the project on the basis that low-rent housing .would decrease property values, view lots would be destroyed by construction of the proposed two-story buildings, traffic and parking to t.he back of the property and increase density would con- tribute to noise factor. - Vernon Gleaves, 2515 Highland Oaks Drive, speaking as a resident of the area, objected to issuance of the permit. He reviewed past Commission and Council,actiDn in denyi,ng other requests for multiple- family housing in the area with the exception of one abutting 18th Avenue which was approved. He noted that in that instance the pro- ject was granted for a 20-acre parcel on the express condition that density would not exc eed eight ' units per acre. Buffering between ":~ that project and the single-family area was to be provided w1th higher-:-valuesingle family housing. Mr. Gleaves 'calledatt_~~t.:ion_ to the present policy of not allowing more than R-l PD density south of 18th, and the area as shown in the 1990 General Plan would carry no more than 10-units per acre. Als9, that the present equipment storage yard use on a portion of the property is being phased out and there has been no indicatiDn of the intende~ use when the phase~ out has been compl.eted. Mr. Gleaves said the app,ell,ant has the bur=: den of proof that the Planning Commission abused its discretion in denying the permit and that the project would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. He reviewed history of rezoning denial on other:.properties on the basis of density and said.:"there was no reason why the area should not remain a single~family resi- .,':" "'dent:ta-:r_~~elt~-=-He ..n.oted the'opt~'.Qb~)3t_ill. in eiistenc.efor"possible .' use of" a portion of the Center's property for a Fred Meyer store and feared that allowing multiple-family zoning adjacent to that site would make easier commercial zoning in that area where it has traditionally been denied. Mr. Gleaves sai,d this project was reviewed by the Committee on Aging which rec.ommended denial on the basis that it did not meet the needs of the age.d. He memtioned the qrgument presented by Mr. Adkin$ that wording of the' Code prevents Federal financing prior to :~:V€e~.approval, ~and maintained that. a change in the zoning ordinance shs:nlldbe sought rather than al change in.~the permit criteria. . Mr. ''Gleaves primary concern was a density of 13.5 units per acre adjacent to a single-family district and possibility of commerical .development on the balance of the Center's property' not being used for the housing development. Others opposing the project were Lawrence Maaden, 2511 West 21st Avenue; Janet Doll, 2577 West 21st Avenue; Bob Horning, 2505 West:=, 21st Avenue; and Laura Coker, 2183 Cijz.y View. There o1;:>jegtions were based on possibility of othei than elderly eventually occupying the housing, traffic adjacent to single-family back yards, remoteness of services normally used by elderly people, height of proposed structures, and probably cbntributionto smog through increased traffic. . -- . Pub~ic . l:l~~tiFl,g was c:;Losed. ~ . _' :... 4~ . .~:.~ . . _ "'..J=~ - _ ~. ._ -. '-- , ":,.;.... _ _ __ '" .,.," Staff notes with regard to the conditional use/ permit were read. Councilman McDonalddid"not favOr the.project, referring to the policy of single-family zoning only ,south of 18th Avenue. Council- man Murray wondered i1' claims that this type of housing del!rreased values of surro1;!.nding properties could be substantiated, and whether this project woili~d be feasible based on a density 01' ten units per acre. Jim Saul, Planning department, said that the proponents claimed ten units per acre would not be feasible when the Planning Commission asked the same question. Some discussion followed with regard to development of the overall site, Fred Meyer option on-a portion of the property, and a ~ossible new look at density and parking on the basis of people.per acre _'~ rather than units per acre. Mrs,., 'ireal~,-inoved seconded by Mr. Williams that the Council... uphold the Planning Comm~ssion and. deny the appeal. / Councilwoman L.:ampbell wondered why the housing would not be finan- cially 1'easible based on ten units per acre. ;:;he said other appli~ cants proceed with PUDs after certain conditions are set even though they don't necessarily receive what was 01~iginally requested.,' Councilman Murray was interested in that point also ,saying tna't if B2. 3/27 /73 ~ 2' .