06/27/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bradley arrived. Mr. Gleaves said there were a number of residences on part of the - property which could not be rehabilitated. The City had reviewed the houses' exteriors, and indicated none were presently fit for human inhabitation and were not economically convertable as residences and would have to be removed. Mr. Gleaves presented to Council a number of pictures showing the deteriorated condition of the houses. He said the property was presently zoned RA, and reviewed for Council the City's description of RA zoning. He said it was obviously apparent the area was not semi-rural, as required in the RA zoning, and the existing zoning was thus obviously wrong. It was felt that C-2 zoning would be more appropriate for this piece of property. As for compliance to the General Plan, Mr. Gleaves said that issue was not clear cut. He said there was high density in the area, and the Plan had not been refined for that area. The Plan did not show neighborhood commercial or strip commercial, nor did it accurately reflect industrial or commercial growth in the area. He said the trend in the area had been to include commercial develop- ment, and he submitted it would be inappropriate land use to have a residential development running through the mid-block against C-2 zoning without an alley or a buffer zone. He said his client was presently faced with spending close to $200,000 to improve and expand the facilities, and he did not have sufficient parking to meet the city building code. There was no property nearby avail- e able for Mr. Updegrave to use. He said the question to be faced was placing parking on prime commercially-zoned land. He sub- mitted that the rezoning would allow a better land use, and felt the situation was one of facing whether or not this property would be developed with some type of new development. He said it was not a suitable location for some type of high density development. He noted the business was an asset to the City's business community, and a public need for continuation of the business could be very clearly established. . He believed the City Council had supported zone changes to permit existing businesses to expand and said this zone change request would be consistent with past policy. Protection for the neighbors in the area could be accomplished with site review attached to the zoning. He reiterated he believed RA zoning was inappropriate and believed commercial zoning would be more appropriate. He re- viewed the public need aspect to continue the business and the unavailability of other land in the area for that purpose. Other zone changes in the area had been opposed by neighboring residences, but none opposed this zone change. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul referred Council to the staff notes and minutes, saying the basic issues the Planning Commission and staff had felt important . were addressed there. In regard to the question of public need, he said the City Council was being asked to rezone one-half block 51~ 6/27/77--4