Laserfiche WebLink
529 <br /> December 20,1989 <br /> 753.11 FINDINGSi <br /> 244.99 <br /> 00.41 The rezone request is f <br /> or <br /> a property currently <br /> 0808.00 zoned R-1 SingleSFamily Lox n ity Residential to R_3 ^ s <br /> 58.09 Family w Density Residential.. The Multiple <br /> 422.11 the <br /> ellingsubject prooperrtey for Multicre. The ple Family Residentve ial and U 15lan s designates <br /> Y5 <br /> 307.0 <br /> 85.16 Residence;d: units Eooth, q_2/Sin f Coerce., South: gRli/singlee Familare y <br /> 004.96 Family Residence. The areas Family <br /> Residence;subject <br /> Nett: R-1/Single <br /> 161.0 composed of nice well-establishedrsingle^famile eighbo property are �I <br /> Y neighborhoods. <br /> 032'53 CONCLUSION <br /> Rezoning a the subject property to R_3 Multiple Family Low <br /> 606.20 Density will.result in providing zoningdesignation <br /> property different from and Incompatibe mittat P ofY this <br /> Ssrtantamounp to raise whloohee all deaf anetee single lamp Tile <br /> rezone requests to^heot era Further, St south <br /> utrigeoex ubse <br /> property eating a adverse impactes immediately al o th P the subject <br /> antl maintained single family on the already well-established • <br /> oP the subject property. <br /> neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity <br /> FININGS <br /> Theihbors of the subject apartments w concerned about the <br /> heightBs <br /> of the existing apartment structure asit a relates to the <br /> blockage oP their views. qny development of the apartments could <br /> oheirbicuresult in en increase Sn the height oP the structures above <br /> rent for 6Y_POux Peet M1elght Pox 1810 60th B.E. ane <br /> Twenty-two Peet for Olo Colby Ave. <br /> CONCLUSION :I <br /> Potential redevelopment of the subject apartments under the <br /> requested rezone cotdd result in potential view blockage of the <br /> neighboring residential structures, <br /> FINDINGS <br /> The applicant for tthe expressed that he had n <br /> intention of demolishing isting n buildings nor any immediate <br /> intention to redevelop the site. The primary reason for requesting <br /> the rezone was for the purpose of financing. <br /> CONCLUSION ) <br /> a <br /> financinguesis ting rezone of a parcel solely on the basis of <br /> sufficient basis for allowing a retone. The <br /> applicant has failed to meet his burden of showing the need for the <br /> ono DECISION <br /> City Council Hereby denies the requested rezone <br /> Roll was called with all councilmembere voting yes. <br /> Motion carried. <br />