Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />- , <br /> <br /> <br />Andrew W. Nebergall, 1d4 East 26th, said he represented two imme- . <br />diate neighbors and the Friendly Neighborhood Group, all of whom ~ <br />found the rezoning request objectionable. He said they disagreed <br />with the owner1s statement that the neighborhood was deteriorating; <br />and failed to see how the neighborhood could be improved by putting <br />a four-family unit where a one-family unit now exists. He also noted <br />the group felt the City should honor the deed restrictions in the <br />Plummers Addition. He said these conclusions were reached at the <br />group.s meeting of May 24, 1977. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony " <br />presented. <br /> <br />Mr. Belisle commented that in the area the proponents were discU$:sing <br />there existed many zonings in violation of the deed Jestri ctitlfl$ ,per <br />se in Plummers Addition. He felt his request was reasonable, ,an4that <br />others had done the same thi og, but not in the ri ghtway,;,' , <br />- "'1 <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen asked Mr. Saul what the general future of :the araafllight <br />be, noting there was a fair amount of R-l zonin9 to the northaQ:<( : <br />east, and whether it seemed that RG zoning woul d be extended. '. Mr,. <br />Saul replied the Planning Commission hc}d discussed t~QU~stiOjlut <br />great length as reflected in the minutes. The area z;onedR....l h<tct~been . <br />deve lopedni ce 1 y and the Plallnfog COmlni ssi on was concerned abouf'fItain- <br />tai oi ng that area. Howev.er, the 1'1 anni ng COlIITJi ssi on was J ooki;t1g'iata <br />diff. erent perspe.ctive With.' r...esipect 1..0 thiS..' pa. rticular. zo.n. i.ng r.eq.....u. e.. st, ..... <br />with its proximity to various commercial uses, particularly to t~. <br />south of 'the property. The Planning Commission was emptlaslzing the . <br />importance of trying to maintain the. central area while lQoking ilt <br />tranisition zoning on both ends. <br /> <br />Mr. Hamel asked if the 6,7UU square foot lot would provide sufficlent <br />parking and livability.Mr,. saul r~plied if the property were re;Z~d <br />RG, it woul~ depend on what Mr. Belisle proposed regarding the rlb/mbar <br />of units developed. In anRG :districtthe density i"s based on room- <br />content figures. It might have less than four units. In any event, . <br />he continued, an RG zoning has certain defined standards. Mr. Lieual1en <br />then asked if Mr. Belisle could tear the house down and build some <br />other structure. Mr. Saul replied yes, there was no Obligation to <br />retain the structure. Mr. Bradley asked what other zoning designation <br />could carry out the plan for medium density. Mr. Sau} replied R.2 <br />zoning. ~lr Bradley asked how many units that would permit. "Mr. Saul <br />replied, two. <br /> <br />Council Bill 14d6--Rezoning from R-1 to RG area located west,sid,e of <br />Oak Street, between East Loth ao,d27th avenues was read by couocil <br />bill number and title only, there being no Council member present <br />requesting it be read in full. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen noted that site review procedures had been discusseGi by <br />by the Pl anni ng Commissi on but noacti on was taken. He asked i f 'S:~te <br />review procedures could ert$tJre that Mr. Belisle would construct th~ .. <br />structure as presented to.PlanningConvnissioo.Mr. Saul replied that ',. <br />site review procedures could not.be used directly for that purpose, <br /> <br />6/13/77 - 4 <br /> <br />Lf13 <br />