08/27/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

trying to avoid paying another filing fee, saying that by ordinance the applicant is prohibited from applying for the same rezoning within one year of the time it_ is denied by the Council. If it is tabled, that one-year-limit would not apply. ,jIt; Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the :request tOurezone -_property west ~of_'Quaker -Street__an~ _north-~of15thvAvenue:_to R-2-3.7-,SR be tabled. Motion carried l.manimous;ly.- - 3. Southwest corner of 14th Avenue and Hilyard Street (Loomis) - From R-3 to R-4 Planning Commission recommended denial. Copies of Planning Commission minutes and staff notes were previously furnished to Council members. Jim Saul, planner, described the property and said the Planning Commission recommendation noted the present R-3zone is in conformance with the General Plan. The Commission was also concerned with regard to a number of problems resulting from development under R-4 zoning and did not want to expand that zone west of Hilyard Street. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. .,r Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the Council agree with the findings of fact as set forth in the Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 1973, that they be adopted' by the Council by reference thereto, and that rezoning the subject property to R-4 be denied. Motion carried rm~~w~.' ~ - 4. Northeast corner Cal Young Road and Gilham Road (Arbogast) - From RA to R~2 .~ Planning Commission recommended denial. Copies of Planning Commission minutes and staff notes were previously furnished to Council members. Jim Saul, planner, described the property on which rezoning was requested and said that under present zoning it would be possible to develop as a conventional subdivision or under planned unit regulations. The Commission in its recommendation noted the General Plan's indication of low-density for this area, whereas under the requested R-2 zone the property conceivably could be developed with 18 units per acre. Public hearing was opened. John Mulder, attorney, representing the petitioner, recognized that the property was intended for low-density or single-family type development. However, he said, there was no economically feasible way to accomplish that because of the location at the junction of two very busy arterials, Cal Young and Gilham Roads. He noted recent development on Oakway Road-and new commercial uses on Cal Young and Coburg which had generated a considerable increase in traffic. He reminded the Council that under the Willakenzie Interim Plan R-2 zoning was suggested for this property, and=said that the cost per acre was far too high for subdividing it into only two or three.lots. He noted the numerous previous rezoning requests on the property _ and said it could be "put to rest" so far as residential zoning is'concerned. He . said there is a real public need for low-cost housing which could be provided by . development of this property under multiple-family zoning. Mr. Mulder added that the property lies within the urban service boundary and development would fulfill the goal of using-vacant properties within that area. Multiple-housing on this property, he said, would offer ideal buffering on Cal Young Road for those single- family houses and residential units to the rear. He said the applicant would abide with PUD limitation of not more than 14 rmits in the entire tract. Ray Bradley, 2145 Carmel, said he owned property within one-half mile of the sub- ject property. He said the applicant had not shown where the proposal conforms I to the General Plan, only to the Willakenzie Interim Plan. He said there was no statement made that the Interim Plan superse'des the 1990 Plan. Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, said the Willakenzie Plan has been super- seded by the 1990 Plan, but rmder the Willakenzie Plan only that part of the prop- erty 150 feet back fromCal Young Road was eligible for R-2 with an overall density not to exceed ten units per acre, and that under planned unit regulations. She noted the new single-family housing recently constructed in the area. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. lit Councilman McDonald wondered whether the applicant could work something out with ~~ the Planning staff whereby fewer units could be built on the property. He thought a single-family home at that location would be inappropriate. ". -, Councilman Murray commented on the attractive homes in the: area. He asked if those locations were zoned R-l~and received an affirmative answer. '2.&5 8/27/73 - 8