10/25/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

traffic now. He noted that staff, after Commission hearing, questioned its own recommendation, and he called attention to the staff report which based all findings solely on the information presented by the petitioner. He thought - it important to note the overwhelming objection to this zone change from within rhe neighborhood and asked whether it was more important to consider the gesires and needs of the people in a community or those of a few individuals. Others speaking against the zone change, all living in the vicinity of the sub- Ject property, were William Street, 1471 Villard Street; Judith Reeve, 1416 Villard Street; Martha Stayton, 1480 Villard Street; Stan Sessions, 1480 Villard Street; Jean Reeder, 1645 Fairmount Boulevard; and Jean Jacoby, 1790 Ferry Street. All cited lack of need for such a facility in this area, probable additional flooding of surrounding area if more blacktop for parking is installed, poten- tial destructive effect on the residential character or the neighborhood and danger to families living there from increased traffic, no buffer zone needed, additional traffic would create further hazards for bike users, etc. Ms.Reeder submitted written testimony from the Fairmount Neighbors, citing the same bases for their objection to the proposed zone change, as well as the removal of low- cost housing for such a project. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. A short recess was taken, and upon reconvening, Mr. Saul explained that the same issues were raised at the Planning Commission hearing, all covered by Commission minutes previously distributed to Council members. Councilman Hamel asked for staff comment with regard to the basis for the Com- mission's conclusion that there was a need for this change. Mr. Saul answered that at the time of staff evaluation no information was available from the e neighborhood, only from the applicant. The Commission, based primarily on that information and testimony presented at its hearing, voted 4:2 - four feeling the applicant had carried the burden of proof, two feeling there was no need indicated for the change. Councilwoman Shirey asked about the relationship between the commercial and residential uses in that area. Mr. Saul answered that there was some land along the north side of Franklin Boulevard zoned commercial, some residential; almost all of the C-2 property south of Franklin is the area immediately east of the subject property. He added that C-2 will take medical/dental uses. Councilman Bradley asked if there had been experience to show any preference between commercial and higher density resid.ential as a buffer or transitional use. Mr. Saul responded that the type of buffer in many instances depended upon yircumstances peculiar to a specific location. In this instance, the General Plan indicates institutional use or low~density residential use far- ther to the south or to the east, which would give little substance for higher residential use in this area. He added that in the past the Commission and Council had more or less given preference to RP zones when considering buffers between commercial and residential uses. . Councilman Haws asked about the number of houses to the east of the subject property and the status of the Maude Kerns Art Center. Mr. Saul answered that there were at least five or six individual lots, each developed with a single house. With regard to the Maude Kerns Art Center, he said, that started under -- a.variance but subsequently a conditional use permit was issued. Cquncilwoman Beal commented that location of medical clinics near hospitals is sometimes used as the basis for need of a particular site. She wondered if such representation had been made before Commission hearings with regard 10/25/76 - 8 5\3