03-18-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

John Rice, 840 2nd Street, said he has had to contend with the noise level from the pole yard. Rice expressed concern about the noise level from such a dense development. The wildlife on the site in question is a pleasure. Where are the children going to play? It would be pleasant to have a little park in the neighborhood. If half the proposed units have children in them, where will those children play? Pat Rother, 490 9th Avenue NW, stated that the proposed development is not compatible with the existing development, which is mostly R-1. The trees are 100 years old on the site. It will take another 100 years to grow trees of that size. Rice asked, if this parcel is rezoned to R-3 and this project falls through, it is open to townhouses, apartment buildings or anything. Baker responded anything acceptable in an R-3 district would be acceptable. Rice said, in that case, it should be kept R-1. Eugene Connelly, 241 9th Avenue NW, said he felt the development would change the whole neighborhood. We like it the way it is. The zoning should remain R-1. A resident on 12th Avenue NW said he liked to walk his dog and noticed children trying to cross Old Highway 8. The traffic is a big concern in that area. Another concern is the greenway effect and the density. PH. Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla,7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. Zisla commented rezoning the property to R-3B allows a range of development in the event Cadwallader’s development does not go forward. Is there any way to prevent the R-3B zoning in the event the project does not happen? Mattila said if the property were rezoned to R-3B, the site would be open to any higher density development permitted in that district. Zisla said he felt it is appropriate to open the use to something more than single family homes, but the R-3B zoning seems too broad. Is there any other alternative? Mattila said this proposal could be accommodated under an R-2 zoning which cuts down the density to 37 units. Zisla asked what the PRD would do in terms of flexibility, setbacks and density. Mattila responded this proposal is not a PRD, but the PRD would allow for an increase in density in the R-2 District. If this site were rezoned to R-2, the density would be increased to 5,000 square feet per unit, from 6,250 square feet per unit. However, the PRD Ordinance does require that the total foot print of all buildings proposed for the site cannot exceed 25 percent of the total site area. This proposal does exceed the 25 percent limitation and that was one reason it was not pursued as a PRD by the applicant. Zisla stated, in that case, you would have the same number of units if you used a PRD. Mattila responded, you would be limited to the 25% clause which limits the applicant to 29 units if the site were rezoned to R-2 and overlayed with the PRD Ordinance. Livingston asked about an R-1 PRD. Mattila stated an R-1 PRD would have a maximum density of 22 units. Zisla said he would like to disagree with the people who spoke about keeping the trees on the site. Zisla said a property owner should not be required to keep his land for the benefit for the neighbors. The Planning Commission cannot say no to an appropriate use of the land because we want to save the trees. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\03-18-97.WPD 6