11/25/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

some, months ago with Mr. Hedin but he (Councilman Wood) felt that discussion, in no way prejudiced his ability to make an objective decision. The Chair 'ruled that Mr. Wood would be qualified to vote since a discussion of the procedure , e without discussion of specifics of the property in question did not constitute an ,ex parte contact. (0355) John Porter, planning director, presented slides of the area including vicinity map of the property. Manager read the applicant~s appeal of the Planning Commis- sion recommendation to deny the C-l zone. Public hearing was opened. (0430) Frank Bonson, speaking for the petitioner, Carl Hedin, said the need for the re- zoning was demonstrated through the percentage ratio of vacant commercial prop- erty in the city to the percentage of this ownership on which commercial zoning was requested. Expansion of Mr. Hedin's business was necessary at this 10cat~6n, he said, to "streamline" its operation, and expanding in this same area would fit the objective of the General Plan for filling out properties within the urban boundary before going into outlying areas. Mr. Bonson said that although owners of all parcels participating in the rezoning application were in favor of com- mercial uses, and they were included to avoid "spot" zoning, there were no 'plans to expand commercial uses at this time beyond Mr. Hedin's needs. He took issue with staff statement that residential uses in this area were designated in the comprehensive plan, saying the area should'definitely be designated for commercial uses. Also, that urban facilities existed to the greatest degree. And he thought e the Livingston & Blayney report calling for provision for expansion of commercial uses should be applied in this instance. There was no intent to extend commercial zoning along 18th Avenue, Mr. Bonson continued, adding that each zoning issue should be considered on its own merits. This request would amount only to enlarg- ing an existing commercial area which was needed. He quoted the City Code having to do with preserving adequate commercial and industrial space to maintain a healthy economy and interpreted that as clearly specifying there should be space for commercial expansion. He felt the need for the commercial use had been shown and that the only question was the difference in interpretation of the general plan. Mr. Bonson again noted the 67% vacant land in the city zoned for commercial uses and compared that to the 3% available in this area which he said indicated a definite need for more commercial land in this neighborhood. He said he didn't feel that staff in suggesting expansion on the one available lot behind Mr.Hedin's pr.operty was in position to select property on which development would occur. And he thought development as proposed would be an improvement on the existing residential develoment, that new residential building on the vacant properties wa not likely to occur. He reminded the Council again of the Livingston & Blayney statement of need for space to allow commercial expansion, and the neighborhood need for added ~ervices in the 18th and Grant area. (0655) Carl Hedin, applicant, noted a group of businessmen recently organized (18th and e Chambers Association) who were in favor of the rezoning. Also, owners of the vacant properties who were party to the rezoning application. (0680) Roy Hicks, 1810 Chambers Street, was in favor of the rezoning. He said the need for growth in that area was evident and he thought rezoning this property would be an advantage since it would fill out the vacant block adjacent to commercial property without extending into adjacent~residential property. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony. (0703) Councilman Murray asked Mr. Bonson for clarification of the percen~age ratio re- ferred to in relation to vacant commercially zoned property in the city. Mr. Bonson explained that in this commercial area there was available only 3% compared to one~third of the commercial properties available in the entire city. ' That was why, he said, commercial zoning was needed here more than anyplace else in town. Mr. Murray questioned Mr. Bonson further with regard to statements about precedent and consideration of each zone change on its own merit. Also whether the Livingston & Blayney was interpreted as advocating more commercial property throughout the community or more commercial property in a particular place. Mr. Bonson explained that staff questioned the rezoning of seven lots when only two were needed for . Mr. Hedin's expansion. He said immediate development would occur on only the two lots, that development of the other five probabfY would not occur for two or three years. With regard to the Livingston & Blayney commercial report, Mr. Bonson noted that it called for more com~ercial expansion downtown which to him reflected the need for allowance for expansion of any commercial zone, and the 18th and Chambers area on the general plan map clearly showed the subject area as commercial. ~. --..:;. - -." - 40+ 11/25/74 - 7 -