04/08/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0852 He said this piece of property had been isolated by construction of Jacobs Street from other,R-2 zoning, and was adjacent to C-2 property facing on Highway 99N and therefore inappropriate for residential uses. He suggested that C-2 zoning under planned unit procedures would give the Planning Commission extensive con- trol on the 'way the property would be developed. Commercial development with internal traffic patterns would divert traffic from Jacobs Street to Fairfield with signal protection. That would not be so with residential development. He called attention to the integrated plan proposed with a minimum land coverage. Mr. Neel continued that if the subject 'property was developed in mixed-family housing a barrier would have to be established between that type of development and the commercial area fronting on Highway 99N, emphasizing artificial divisions established by earlier property lines. He read communications received from Lane County School District 52, Oregon Lutheran"Laymen, Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Hughes, all favoring the proposed rezoning to C-2 PD. .~. .' .'\1 DeNorval Unthank, 2770 Capital Drive, architect for the lED development, called attention to the Bonneville power lines on the, property underneath which no build- ings could be const~ucted. He said too that the construction of Jacobs Street had changed the situation with regard to R-2 development. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. '.' Manager reported that Craig Tomlinson, owner of apartments across the street from the subject property, favored the rezoning based on his belief that elderly tenants in his apartments would benefit from services which would be available on the site. 0951 It was noted that the only communic~tions received by the, City with regard to the rezoning request were those reported and read by Mr. Neel. . Mr., Saul reviewed the history of actions taken with regard to the property under consideration. The ,Commission in March 1972 expressed concern about excessive com- mercial zoning in the area and recommended R-2 I'D zoning for this property rather than the requested RP PD. That recommendation was accepted by the Council. In March 1973 the Commission was petitioned for C.-I I'D zoning on the same property. At. that time denial was recommended, the Commission citing specifically the lack of public need for the commercial zoning. That request was withdrawn by the petitioner and therefore not heard by the Council. In March 1974 request for C-2 I'D rezoning was filed on the basis of providing convenient commercial facilities to residents of nearby apartment developments. However, the applicant indicated to the Planning Commission that limited convenience commercial facilities would be provided on the first floor of the proposed facility, the remainder of the three- to four-story building to house business offices. Staff analysis pointed out, the proximity of the Gilbert Shopping Center plus other undeveloped commercially zoned property near- by; also that part of the C-2 property around the Gilbert Center was being developed in apartments. So the Commission denial was based on lack of demonstration of public need for the C-2 I'D zone, which lack Mr. Saul said was acknowledged by the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting (public need in terms of total acreage under commercial zoning vs public need in terms of co-ordinated comprehensive design- Commission minutes, 3/12/74). Mr. Saul called attention to the general policy ?tate- ment in the 1990 Plan with regard to strip commercial development and its provision for goods and services not easily accommodated in shopping centers, and the recom- mendation for establishment of criteria for strip commercial development in the Plan review process, especially in the Highway 99N area. He said that if commer-cial zoning was expanded in this area to include all properties in one ownership, recog- nizing that most of the properties in this area were split wirh commercial zoning fronting on Highway 99N and the rear portions zoned residential, it would have an effect on expanding commercial zoning on all single-ownership properties in that area: In addition, he said, the Commission questioned whether population in the Bethel~Danebo area would support additional commercial zoning. " 1062 Councilman Williams recognized the requirement to show adequate need for commercial zoning as a basis for zone change. However, he felt the highest and best use of property should be a consideration. The proposed deveropment, he said~ presented an aesthetical solution for use of that property and was supported by the neighbor- ing community. ,He wondered what alternatives there were to commercial zoning since it was obvious that single-family development would not occur. Mr. Saul answered that the Commission had not used the concept of highest and best use as the basis for planning or zoning. He said single-family development was not the only use available for the property. It is now zoned R-2 which would permit up to 18 units per acre. He explained that the Commission's concern in this area is the relation- ship between R-2 density level with adJacent cqmmereial property. Commission in deliberating on previous requests for commercial zoning in the area considered im- position of site review or planned unit procedures to ensure compatibility with development of this property to a medium density. That density the Commission feels is suitable for this property and can be adequately co-ordinated with existing developmen~ ,~;ur-r,<?,unding :i,1::~. .'. ., ~ k. ~<1 4/8/74 - 3