08/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

change to allow the construction of a duplex on an interior lot. Mr. Saul noted surrounding development and pointed to planning staff notes and minutes concerning bases for. the Commission's action. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by it Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 6, 1976 were received as part of this record. public hearing was opened. James McAlexander, speaking for the applicant, called attention to the medium- density designation on the 1990 Plan map for the subject area as well as the staff mention of size of the vacant parcel - 10,600 square feet - which would allow a fourplex building. He pointed out that existing duplex development surrounded the property and the density allowed under the proposed zoning. He showed a floor plan of the duplex proposed for the lot and said he felt it would be in keeping with lot coverage of other low-density development in the area. Mr. McAlexander also pointed out that public services were available - schools, utilities, shopping, recreation. Also, with regard to duplex con- struction on an interior lot, he was hesitant to construct single-family housing between the multiple-family rental units. He said the applicant had no ob- jection to density limitations or site review procedures, if necessary. He felt the proposal was justified with the current trend toward more compact development within the city. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul pointed out the Commission's primary reason for denial of the rezoning was because the Commission had clearly indicated when establishing the R-2 PD - zoning in 1972, that that was the extent of medium-density development in that area. He said the Commission required setbacks of about SO feet between prop- erty lines as well as single-story buildings. He added that the subject parcel was part of a minor partition approved partially on the basis that single- family construction would take place. Finally, he said, the Commission recom- mendation was consistent with Plan indications for the area. Mr. McAlexander responded that they were proposing a lower density than that allowed under a planned unit development. Also, that the development to the wast -Village Square - was on a smaller lot than this one, and that a second addition to that PUD would reflect a 10- to II-foot setback. He felt the set- back requirement mentioned was irrelevant because of the location of this prop- erty between a duplex and the Village Square PUD. Councilman Haws asked who built or owned the duplex referred to. Mr. Saul answered that the owner of record was Robert and S. K. Petersen. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel to deny the appeal and the rezoning, and to adopt findings as set out in Planning COIDmission staff notes and minutes of July 6, 1976. Councilwoman Beal was not sure that the Council, because of the late hour, would be giving its best decision in this matter. She suggested giving the issue more ,thought before action. Mr. Haws wondered if the Council could legally do what the applicant was asking - whether the Council had a choice even if more thought - was given. Mr. Saul said the Commission's judgment was that it couldn't, however that could be a judgment matter. He added that a decision certainly did not have tobe made at this meeting, but if other than denial was indicated, the issue would have to go to a joint meeting between the Council and Commission. 8/9/76 - 16 t.fb~