09/12/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 0 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and . minutes of August 1, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at.this time. C.B. 1537--Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 SR Tax Lots 9200 and 9300 located between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue, west of Chambers Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of August 1, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Lieuallen wondered what the present zoning was to the west of this request. Mr. Saul replied the zoning west of Chambers Street was mainly R-1 to the Westmoreland student housing project. He said the only commercial existed at Garfield and 11th. Mr. Lieuallen then wondered if the General Plan did not suggest residential zoning be carried to Garfield. Mr. Saul said it included residential past Garfield in medium density. Mr. Lieuallen said he was inclined to agree with the Planning Department staff recommendation. He said the e Code requires that certain rationale be met to change the zoning. He said in a portion of this request he did not see that happening. He felt this was a convenient method of rezoning land that does not follow under certain use and would vote no on the motion. Mr. Obie agreed with Mr. Lieuallen, saying he had empathy for the request for RP zoning on Tax Lot 9400 as the structure already existed there. However, he was concerned for the R-2 zoning on the vacant pieces of property. He was also concerned with the traffic problem in that area. Mr. Delay wondered if the primary rationale for the R-2 zoning request was because the RP zoning was immediately adjacent, or if changing all of the R-1 to R-2 zoning was something the Planning Commission would be considering. He wondered if they were related to each other or independent judgements. Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission has in the past and will continue to face a difficult problem in this area. He noted the General Plan calls for medium density, yet the area is mostly developed in single family use. He said in this particular instance, and in the past, the Planning Commission has recommended R-2 zoning when property is vacant. Mr. Delay noted he would vote against the motion also as he was not satisfied with the R-2 zoning portion and was worried about the rationale of rezoning on the basis of existing conflicting uses. . 9/12/77--8 ~5