02/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Opposed were Julia Haugsjaa, 870 West 11th Avenue; Mrs. Prank Chase, 1144 Polk Street; Isalene Harpole, 1158 Polk Street; and Bob Napier, 908 Adams Street, representing the Westside Quality Project. Their concerns were primarily with protection of the one- and two-family housing and residential character of the area and with anticipated increased traffic. Ms. Haugsjaa noted the building in which the clinic was proposed had not been a dental office for many years, continuity as a business location had been broken, thereby precluding its use now under zoning laws as a clinic. Mr. Napier noted that the planning staff notes indicated a dental clinic at 11th and Polk would be in violation of the 1990 Plan. He felt there was adequate professional office space and land properly zoned for this type of activity existing within a few blocks of this location. His opposition, he said, was primarily because of the many other activities that would be able to locate there is the zone was changed - medical facilities, realtors, attorneys, lumber brokers, etc. He noted the goal for use of community development funds in that area was to retain the quality and character of the residential area, a zone change of this type would undermine that effort. He said the Westside Quality neighborhood had consistently op- posed any change from the residential character of the area and the possibility of opening the length of 11th Avenue to other types of professional uses. They had the backing of th~ planning staff and the Planning Commission, he said, and he hoped the Council too would uphold their position. - Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul thought the major points the Council should consider involved compliance with the 1990 Plan, demonstration of public need, and comparison of this prop- erty with other available property. He said the zoning in this area now is R-2, equivalent to medium-density development called for in the Plan diagram and consistent with the kinds of objectives called for in the Plan. With regard to need, he said this was the best served area in the entire community so far 4It as availability of property for professional and commercial uses. He described the bordering properties and zoning available for the needs proposed by the applicant and said the Planning Commission on that basis recommended denial. Councilman Bradley asked why residential/professional (RP) use on this property was considered inconsistent with the 1990 Plan. Mr. Saul answered that the Plan makes no specific reference to RP use, rather it deals in broad categories of uses. He said it could be debated whether that particular use is or is not consistent with the Plan, but staff, in looking at the Plan and trying to asses this area, felt that existing zoning and pattern is consistent with the General Plan. Michael Farthing, attorney for Dr. Hayden, said the main issue was that of need for the facility, that a survey of residents in the area produced 570 signatures of people who believe there are not sufficient dental services available to that neighborhood. The fact that there is enough properly zoned land in the area, he said, would not help those people who need the facility. He said this re- quest would locate a single dentist in that neighborhood, and any subsequent request for dental offices would have to be weighed on its own merit. Mr. Farthing continued that the applicant is willing to enter into any reasonable contract with restrictive stiuplations to allow the dental clinic on the lot at 11th and Polk. He added that the effect on the neighborhood would not be substantial compared to the benefit, traffic would be decreased rather than increased be- cause of the availability of the services, and the use would be most consistent with the 1990 Plan. e Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to confirm the Planning Com- mission recommendation and deny the zone change. 2/9/76 -6 ~8