10/07/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . , . "':' --~.'~ \ ! Councilman Murray noted that a number"of properties in the vicini ty of the subject l property were in single-family use although he was not aware of any low-density \ zoning in that area now. He wondered what actions would have to be taken to accom- \ plish the low-density zoning the General Plan called for. He thought it important ,. in taking action on this request not to assume that the entire area should be zoned R-2 with no continuing interest in zoning for low density. i . John Porter, planning director, answered that when the General Plan was being de- l . veloped and while the Highway 126 route was being debated, planning staff was work- , ing on an application for Federal funds to develop an overall neighborhood develop"",,:,~ ment plan for that area, carving out areas for low-income and some medium garden , : apartments. The Federal program was discontinued and the detailed plan for the : area was not accomplished. About 1967, he said, the then central planning agency I felt medium-density housing was appropriate, attempting to save many of the sound ,i single-family homes there. As a result the area contained mixed housing. However, :he said, the written text of the General Plan saw this as a prime area and meeting .1 , :the criteria for higher density. Also, the Commission felt the area too unique to be cut into conventional subdivisions. ;Jim Saul, planner, added that those working on development of the General Plan felt 'the low-density designation would preserve the very good single-family housing to the east and south of the Fox Glenn site, which to some degree was dependent upon j 'being able to carry out an overall plan for the area. Further complication resulted' i from the fact that without exception all of the properties in single-family use were zoned/R-2. So the presence of this one large' vacant parcel, centrally located e, near to downtown, met the objectives of the General Plan text, increasing density in , and around the metropolitan core. He said there was possibility of working with the ;neighborhood organization in an attempt to rezone properties in low-density use back i to low-density zone. , ! Councilwoman Beal~asked~if~.there would be a tax incentive to the owners of R-2 'zoned I ~properties in RA use to-rezone to RA. Mr. Saul knew of no significant advantage. ! I I i Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to place the item on the next regular Council agenda for final action without further public hearing Comm or public testimony. Motion carried unanimously. 9/25/74 Pub Hrng I It was understood copies of findings would be distributed to Council members prior to the October 7,1974 Council meetfnq. '1 I I I , The Planning Commission recommended rezoning and the issue came to Council who had questions and asked for a joint meeting. That meeting was held and the Planning Commission reaffirmed their decision. The bill is up for final action, with no' public hearing to be held. The area in question lies just to the north' of Sladden Park. ~~~~":'-~.~:-~'i,~'C~~:-:~ '~'_ -, ;'_- _ . " . ~ ; ~ ~ __ . Counc'1:i Bilf No. 638 -" ReCzoning fo R-2 PD area north of Lewis Street west of Adams Street (Safely) was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the council bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Murray said that, in previous discussions on this issue, he had raised questions about the 1990 Plan diagram and how it designates this area. He has looked at it again and feels the property is not within the medium density designation. He would argue against the Findings of Fact which states the property lies within "the medium density conceptual schematism of the Metropolitan Plan Diagram." , Mr. Wood saidile looked carefully a:ild does not find that the proposal violates the general course of the 1990 Plan. He added it did not seem possible to determine from the square of map what in fact the 1990 Plan does designate to be the absolute boundary. Mr. Murray asked if the Planning Department would agree that Item b is a fact. - Saul answered by saying the proposed rezoning is consistent with the objectives. Mr. Mr. Murray asked if it were correct Planning could not substantiate it as being within the medium density. Mr. Saul said he agreed that that was correct. 10/7 /74 - 2 345