07/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bruce Anderson, attorney, 777 High Street, supported staff's original proposal for II-B-4 the Whiteaker .area rather than the modified proposal presented. He was opposed to the four-story height proposed in certain conditions. He said it had been clear for years that the current designation for that area was not working out, but he -- felt that although residential use needed impetus, it should be the type of resi- dential use that was more consistent with what could be supported. He maintained that residential development in the area had not occurred because of economics and that there was no guarantee multiple~family rezoning would occur immediately upon its designation. Mr. Anderson continued that the city could protect the area through other actions such as limiting auto use. He thought the major objective should be what the majority of people in that area wanted, and that was not apart- men t s . He noted too that the new state legislation would help single-family hold- ings retain their identities. Alan Mayer, 425 Clark Avenue; Wendi Brannen, 121 North Washington; and Chris Moses, III-A-l 465 Clark Street expressed opposition to the proposed change. They were satisfied with the area as it ~xists, saying it was changing but not the way it would if the properties were sold. They were opposed to any apartment development that would change the character of the neighborhood. General repair and upgrading of homes in the area was going on, they said, and the vacant areas should be retained as open space for those people living there. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Councilman Bradley asked if this Plan amendment was precipitated by an earlier zone III-A-2 change request to accommodate a low-income housing development for the elderly. If so, whether consideration of the amendment then would be governed by criteria and rules of the Fasano case. Mr. Saul and Assistant Manager answered that the amendment was the result of recognizing over a number of years the Whiteaker area e as a problem area, that a series of inquiries about the area caused the study. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said that even if the earlier zone change re- quest had been the precipitating cause for the study - and he understood it was not because it involved about a half-block and was tabled with the applicant's concurrence - his opinion would still be that this was not a quasijudicial matter coming under Fasano rules. He added that in those cases where the court had held a plan amendment was a quasijudicial issue they had involved single ownerships or single parcles; that was not true in this instance. Councilman Bradley then asked if in staff's opinion there was or was not a public need for this Plan amendment. Mr. Saul said that "public need" was not one of the formalized criteria on which plan ame~dments were based. However, if considera- :tion were given to all former comments concerning correlation of this plan amend- ment and achievement of the overall General, Plan, one could say this amendment did constitute a case for public need. Assistant Manager added that a number of policies in the community goals documents are being dealt with in this particular amendment - compact urban growth form, demand on auto dependency, preservation of existing housing, etc. General Plan amendments, he said, are an attempt at making application of broad policy statements. Councilman Murray asked about the timing of this refinement plan in relation to the broader Whiteaker area, whether this refinement study could be incorporated into the overall Whiteaker Plan. Mr. Saul said the Whiteaker plan was now scheduled for consideration in January 1976 unless the Commission's present work load af- fected that schedule. He said the original staff notes on this proposed change could be incorporated as additional elements in the overall Whiteaker Plan, es- - pecially the traffic situation, and perhaps further refinement. Councilman Keller asked for further explwnation of the recommendation to allow four stories with parking on the ground floor. Mr. Saul said that recommendation 7/14/75 - 12 '3',<1