Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes1989-019 . . . Sponsored by: Mavor & Council CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION NO. 89-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, ADOPTING DECISION AS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE SEWARD ADVISORY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, subsequent to public hearing, the Seward Advisory Planning and zoning commission denied an application for a conditional use permit filed on behalf of Seward Associates for the construction of three eight-plex housing units~ and WHEREAS, the owner of the property has appealed the decision to the City Council as the Board of Adjustment; and WHEREAS, the city Council has deliberated subsequent to that hearing and has instructed the city attorney to prepare for the Council a wri tten decision incorporating the reasons and decision of the Council~ and WHEREAS, the decisions attached to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference constitutes the decision of the Board of Adjustment~ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that: Section 1. the decision of the city council of the city of Seward acting as the Board of Adjustment attached to this resolution is adopted. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, this 27th day of Februarv, 1989. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA ~L_~ HARR . GIESELER, MAYOR AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: GIESELER, DUNHAM, HILTON, MEEHAN, SIMUTIS NONE NONE NOLL, O'BRIEN 1 . CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION NO. 89-019 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PERKINS COlE, Attorneys for the city of Seward, Alaska . . (City Seal) /~ 17/ U1n.+L- Fred B. Arvidson City Attorney 2 . . . SEWARD CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN RE: An application for ) Conditional Use Permit ) As Filed by Seward Associates ) ) Lots 1, 2, and 3 Jesse Lee Heights Subdivision No. 3 (Plat 85-3)* DECISION Introduction: This matter came before the Seward City Council acting as a Board of Adjustment on an appeal from a decision of the Seward Advisory Planning Commission denying an application for a conditional use permit. For the reasons set forth in this decision, and based upon the entire record, we REVERSE the decision of the Seward Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission and we REMAND the matter to the Commission for the ISSUANCE of a conditional use permit including those conditions set forth in the memorandum of Mr. Kerry Martin to the Commission dated December 10, 1988, and such further additional conditions as the Commission may find necessary. * The legal description previously used by the Commission and the parties refers to a plat of "Subdivision No.4." That plat has not been finally recorded and the above description is based on a title report included in the materials submitted to the City Council. Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 1 of 27 . . . Background: In this case the Seward City Council is acting as a Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of S 21.78.450 of the Seward Urban District Zoning Code. On September 1, 1988, an application on behalf of Seward Associates was made with the City of Seward for the approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 24-unit Farm Home Administration (FmHA) financed apartment project in the Jesse Lee Heights Subdivision in Seward, Alaska. Although the application indicated that this was "Phase I" of a planned 40-unit complex, throughout the course of the public hearings discussion has been restricted to the pending application which is for a 24-unit complex. We view the merits of an application for an additional 16-units of housing to be severable from the issue before us in this case and our decision in this case should not be considered to pre-judge any subsequent applications for additional units. Each application must be treated on its own merits. The City administration verified ownership of the property through the Kenai Peninsula Borough tax records and, since the property was vacant, the City accepted a copy of the recorded Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 2 of 27 . . . subdivision plat in lieu of the customarily required as-built survey. When a conditional use permit is applied for the Seward Urban Zoning District Code provides that a public hearing shall be held before the Seward Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission. In accordance with the public notice provisions of S 21.78.540-560, notice was given of a hearing on the application. A hearing was held on November 2, 1988, before the Seward Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission (the Commission). At that hearing, the Commission received a substantial amount of written and oral testimony including statements by the applicant and local citizens. The Commission took note that it had received thirty-one letters in opposition to the project and one letter in support. Prior to discussion of the merits of the permit application, Chairman Woodruff stated he desired the Commission to deal with the question of whether there were disabling conflicts of interest on the Commission with respect to the application. Chairman Woodruff suggested that the Commission follow the Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 3 of 27 . . . procedures set forth in S 2.10.035(c) of the Seward Municipal Code which provides: C. No member of the council may discuss or vote on any question in which the member has a direct or indirect substantial financial interest. Direct or indirect financial interest shall be disclosed to the presiding officer prior to the beginning of debate on the question for a ruling on a request from the member with the financial interest to be excused from the discussion and vote. The decision of the presiding officer on a request by a member of the city council to be excused from discussion and a vote may be overriden by the majority vote of the council. If there are not at least four councilmembers in attendance who are qualified to vote, the matter shall be tabled until the next regular or special meeting at which four councilmembers qualified to vote on the matter are in attendance. In this case, since the person to raise the conflict of interest issue was the Commission Chairman, Mr. Woodruff requested that the Vice-Chairman rule on the possible conflict. There was discussion between the Vice-Chairman and the Chairman with respect to the type of property owned by the Chairman, the type of rental market in which it competed, and other matters. After discussion, the Vice-Chairman ruled that Chairman Woodruff did not have a substantial financial interest in the outcome of the request for the application for a conditional use permit. The Chairman then reviewed additional similar disclosures and Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 4 of 27 . . . requests for rulings by other members of the Commission. All of these matters were concluded prior to discussion by the Commission of the merits of the application. A motion to grant the conditional use permit subject to the items listed by Administrative Assistant Kerry Martin in his October 17, 1988, memorandum to the Commission was made. The Commission, after discussion, indicated additional information would be useful prior to rendering a decision. A second public hearing was held on December 14, 1988, (the earlier December 7, 1988, hearing was rescheduled, again with notice). At that hearing, the Commission received additional verbal testimony from six individuals in opposition to the development including a representative of the Seward Property Owners Association. In addition, Mr. James Hardy representing the developer, and the owner, Mr. Frank Irick, spoke at the hearing. It was also reported that the Commission had received an additional 23 letters objecting to the proposed development including 13 from property owners represented by local real estate broker. Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 5 of 27 . . . On call of the question, the Commission voted 2-2 in favor of granting the conditional use permit application. Since this represented less than the required majority, the application was denied. The city attorney was instructed to draft a decision of the Commission for circulation and adoption. subsequent to the issuance of its written decision, the property owner and developer appealed. Again, a public hearing was scheduled, this time before the City Council of the City of Seward acting as a Board of Adjustment. That public hearing was postponed at the request of the petitioner (again with public notice) and a public hearing was held February 20, 1989. At the public hearing counsel for the petitioner made a presentation and several persons testified in favor of the project. In addition, a representative of the Seward Property Owners Association spoke against the project as did several citizens speaking on their own behalf. Prior to discussion by the council, Councilmember O'Brien stated that he felt he had a substantial financial interest in the application in that he owned a substantial amount of rental property in Seward which he believed was in competition with the proposed development. The Mayor ruled that a conflict was Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 6 of 27 . . . present and Mr. O'Brien did not participate in the discussion at the council meeting nor did he participate in any of the Council's deliberations. Councilmember Noll requested advice from the city attorney at the meeting as to whether he, too, had a substantial financial interest in the matter as he is an adjoining property owner. Counsel advised that since the Commission had found that the project would have an adverse impact on adjoining property that Mr. Noll should ask to be excused. The Mayor ruled Mr. Noll was disqualified and he also did not participate in the discussion or deliberations of the council. The city council took the matter under advisement and scheduled a session to discuss the appeal under the provisions of AS 44.62.310(d)(1). In addition, the council left the record open for any additional materials. The Record: There is an extensive record in this case. The city council had before it at the Board of Adjustment hearing an appeal by the petitioner (Brief on Appeal to Board of Adjustment), letters from the developer and from Mr. James Hardy of the National Survey and Syndication Affiliates, as well as the decision of the Planning and Zoning Advisory Commission, the notices of the public Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 7 of 27 . . . hearings, and minutes of the January 23, 1989, city council meeting including minutes of the public hearing before the city council. In addition, the council had before it three separate memoranda from the city administration with respect to the application, the original application and a litigation report of the property, as well as a substantial amount of material consisting of letters both for and against the application. Many of the materials received by the Commission and the council prior to the January 23, 1989, hearing were copied and indexed for the council by the city clerk. The Council also had before it the written materials assembled for the Commission hearings. In addition, written materials including letters from the Seward Property Owners Association dated February 12 and 13, 1989, were submitted. Function of the Council: In beginning our analysis of this case we feel it is important for us to keep in mind the distinction between our normal legislative function--in which we might recommend changes to the Seward Urban District Zoning Code--and our function in this case--to act as a Board of Adjustment on a specific matter involving a particular application for a conditional use permit. Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 8 of 27 . . . Throughout much of the public hearing process, and in many of the written materials submitted, there has been considerable discus- sion of the wisdom of allowing the construction of "additional rental units in Seward," or the public policy reasons for and against "subsidized housing" that might "compete with the private sector." We feel many of those arguments are legitimate matters for public discussion and we commend the Commission for not restricting debate on those issues even though some of them may not have been relevant to the particular matter before the Commission and this Council. The debate over policies of whether and to what extent multi-family housing may be constructed in Seward, and whether and to what extent the concept of subsidized housing fits in with the community's purposes in enacting a zoning code are legitimate matters to be debated and addressed, but they are not the focus of our attention in this particular case. As a legislative body responsible for the development and ultimate implementation of land use planning in the community (for example, we have recently requested transfer of zoning legislative power from the Borough to the City) we are deeply concerned that this public debate be encouraged. But in this case we are not acting as a legislative body determining the WISDOM of the zoning code in general, but Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 9 of 27 . . . whether the policies already articulated legislatively ln that code have been met by the applicant. In making that determination we are faced with two essential layers of issues. The first layer of issues--establishing the general mechanisms for the accomplishment of the purpose set forth as the objective of the zoning code--has already been decided by the adoption of the land use plan for the City in which this particular property and others were designated as most appropriately being developed under the rules applicable for R-3 zones. The second layer of issues--whether this particular project should be granted a conditional use permit--revolve around more particular requirements set forth in S 21.78.280 of the code dealing with conditional use permits. The most difficult task for us is to try to clearly apply the code to the facts before us; NOT with the intent of making new policy, but rather with the intent of applying the policies already made. The conclusion of our effort to do this is that all of the general policies enumerated in S 21.78.020 of the code in general Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 10 of 27 . . . are clearly met with the possible exception of S 21.78.020(E) which we discuss in more detail below, and the specific policies dealing with conditional use permits are all clearly met with the possible exceptions of S 21.78.280(A) and (B). The general policy objective of the code enumerated in S 21.78.020(E) and the specific requirements of S 21.78.280(A) and (B) all deal with the question of real property values. Will the general policy of the code to conserve and stabilize property values (S 21.78.020(E)), the specific policies of not being inconsistent with that general policy in the conditional use permit situation (S 21.78.280(A)), and the specific goal of not adversely affecting the value of adjoining property (~ 21.78.280(B)) be met by this applicant? Before dealing with these difficult value issues, we turn first to the general policies enumerated for the entire zoning code, and then the specific requirements for a conditional use permit. General Policy Provisions of ~ 21.78.020. In order to grant a conditional use permit it must be determined that all of the requirements set forth in S 21.78.280 have been met. The first of those requirements is essentially a reference back to the Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 11 of 27 . . . basic purpose statement for the entire code contained in S 21.78.020. Section 21.78.280(A) provides that it must be determined that: (A) the use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes of the zoning district, Thus, this section requires essentially two determinations. First, that the use is consistent with the purposes of the chapter and second, that the use is consistent with the purposes of the zoninq district. We will discuss the purpose of the chapter first. Purposes of the Chapter: The purpose of the chapter is set out in S 21.78.020 of the code. The general stated purpose is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The specific means for accomplishing that protection are listed in subparagraphs (A) through (H). Our first task, then, is to analyze the general provisions of the code to determine whether the use "is consistent with the purpose of this chapter." Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 12 of 27 . . . A. Desiqnatinq, requlatinq, and restrictinq the location and use of buildinqs, structures and land for residence, commerce, trade, industry or other purpose. (S 21.78.020(A)) The Seward Comprehensive Plan is the mechanism by which the community determines the appropriate location for different uses based on the broad distinctions between residential and commercial uses (such as "trade, industry or other purpose"). The Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1985 provides limited areas for multi-family housing development in Seward. The property in question is in an R-3 zone. The R-3 zone is intended to provide generally residential neighborhoods with multi-family housing up to four units. In addition, the R-3 zone accommodates other multi-family housing of five units or more under the conditional use permit system. If the purpose of S 21.78.020(A) is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing for different land uses based on the distinctions between residential and commercial use it can hardly be argued that the applicant's project doesn't meet this standard. We conclude that the use proposed is consistent with the land use plan. B. Requlatinq and limitinq the heiqht, number of stories and size of buildinq and other structures. The applicant's description of the project and the preliminary designs submitted indicate they will probably meet these requirements. Of course, Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 13 of 27 . . . final approval of height restrictions will depend on the city building inspector's review of the plans to make sure the final plans meet code requirements. C. Requlatinq and determininq the size of yards and other open spaces. The applicant's project would cover approximately 16% of the proposed site. The zoning code would allow for a maximum of 40%. Thus, the application meets the size requirements for open spaces and yards. In addition, the city administration has reviewed the plans for play areas and parking and has recommended approval of the application. D. Requlatinq and limitinq the density of population. The applicant's project has substantially less density than what would be allowed under the zoning code. The density for the planned 24-units is less than half of that permitted under the R-3 designation. E. Conservinq and stabilizinq the value of property. This is the key issue and is dealt with in our discussion of values below. F. Providinq adequate open spaces for light and air, and to prevent and fiqht fires. The site plan provided by the developer Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 14 of 27 . . . provides for approximately 16% of the available land to be used for construction of buildings. Under the current R-3 zone classification a maximum 40% of the land could be used without a conditional use permit for the construction of multi-family residences provided they were four-plexes or less. G. preventinq undue concentration of population. In general terms, the land use plan and zoning code have dealt with the concentration of population issue by providing for multi- family districts around the core downtown area and near the school complex. The proposed development of 24-units on the property would be substantially less dense than what would be allowed without a conditional use permit under the existing code. H. Lesseninq congestion on streets and highways. Again, the permitted uses under R-3 would allow substantially greater numbers of units to be developed on the subject property, which would present an increase in traffic congestion beyond that reasonably expected from this particular development. Our first task, then, to analyze whether the intended use of the applicant meets the general requirements of S 21.78.020 of the Code results in our conclusion that it does, with the possible exception of S 21.78.020(E) discussed below. Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 15 of 27 . . . Requirements of S 21.78.280. Our next task is to analyze the particular requirements of S 21.78.280 dealing with conditional use permits to determine if these, too, have been met. The stated purpose of the conditional use permit system is "to provide the flexibility necessary to permit a use within a district under conditions which are specified in addition to regulations applying to uses permitted outright within the district." S 21.78.270. In this case there has been no question from anyone at any of the public hearings that the applicant would be fully allowed to construct four-plexes on the land in question without a conditional use permit. There is a legitimate reason to contrast what would be permitted outright under the code and this project, for it seems to us that the principal difference between what is allowed outright under the code and the applicant's project is that he plans to build eight-plexes, not four-plexes. It is the INCREMENTAL increase in the number (size) of units that seems to be the proper focus of our attention. We believe our task is not to ask whether, for example, the market in Seward would accommodate additional four-plexes to be Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 16 of 27 . . . constructed on the property in question, for the answer to that issue has already been determined in the classification of the property as R-3. Further, we are not being properly asked in this forum for a ban on additional housing construction in Seward, although perhaps some arguments might be legitimately made that such a moratorium might be a wise legislative move. Rather, we are being asked to pass on this application for this particular construction. Section 21.78.280 provides us with specific guidelines for reviewing the permit application and outlines for us the particular issues we need to review. We think the Commission did an excellent job in sifting through the materials and evidence and applying the provisions of S 21.78.280 with the exception only of the value questions. We agree with the conclusions and findings of the commission with respect to the individual findings of fact numbered 7, 8, 9, 10 and the conclusions of the Commission contained in items 1, 4, 5, and 6. Section 21.78.280(A) provides that before an application for a conditional use permit can be granted it must be determined as follows: A. The use is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and of the zoning district. With the exception of the purposes Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 17 of 27 . . . of the chapter set forth in ~ 21.78.020(E) we have dealt with the general purposes. We now examine the question of whether the use intended is compatible with the zoning district, which in this case is R-3. We find that it is. Section 21.78.130 of the Code provides that the R-3 district "is intended to stabilize, protect and encourage a suitable environment for high-density, multi-family residential living." Within the R-3 zone multi-family housing units with three or four units each are permitted outright, without any conditional use permit. S 21.78.190(Table). "High-density, multi-family residential living" lS exactly the purpose of the applicant's project and we find no violation of the purposes of the zoning district itself. B. The value of adioining property will not be significantly impaired. We discuss this issue below in our section on values. C. The proposed use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Seward. The current Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan adopted in 1985 designates the site for multi-family residential development. The use contemplated here is precisely the type of use contemplated by that plan and we Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 18 of 27 . . . find, therefore, that the proposed use does not violate S 21.78.280(C). D. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed site. All required public utility services-- water, sewer, power and telephone are already of adequate size to serve the project. They are adjacent to and available to the proposed site. In addition, Swetmann Avenue, upon which the project fronts, is of sufficient width and has an adequate hard surface to meet the needs of tenants. The City has police, fire and refuse service available and adequate to meet the needs of the project. E. A more suitable location for the use is not readily available. There are few large parcels available in the City that are zoned for apartment development. The area surrounding the site was originally zoned with such development in mind. The Commission specifically found, based on the record before it, that there was not a more suitable site available. With the exception of the question of property values for adjoining property the Commission found, and we agree, that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning district. Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 19 of 27 . . . Values Issue. Real estate values are difficult to determine. We find that it is even more difficult to determine, with some degree of certainty, the impact a particular development, such as the one in this case, on other property values in the community. Most difficult of all is to try to draw the distinction between the impact on values of uses that would be permitted outright under the R-3 zone and the one being sought here. Although the record before the Council is voluminous, we find little "hard" evidence that the purposes of the Seward Urban Zoning Code will be thwarted if the permit is approved. Much of the testimony before the Commission and the Council seemed related primarily to a desire to restrict the further construction of multi-family housing in Seward, and especially "subsidized" housing during a time period that it was alleged the real estate market itself was "depressed." Although we are sympathetic to these issues, we feel they primarily relate to the policy underlying the process of zoning legislation. Issues such as stabilizing or preserving property values at the city-wide level seem most appropriately addressed Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 20 of 27 . . . by the appropriate legislative body--in adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code provisions themselves, not in the individualized context of particular development projects. In trying to determine whether the proposed project will have the effect of reducing or destabilizing real property values in the community as a whole under S 21.78.020(E) or on adjoining property under 9 21.78.280(B), we think it is important to establish a basis for comparison that is realistic and proper. That basis of comparison, we believe, is the comparison between what would be permitted outright on the property in question and the proposed development. In other words, what is the incremental negative impact of the proposed development over a four-plex development that would be permitted without a conditional use permit? We are unconvinced there is any impact, and there is evidence of just the opposite effect. The petitioner is fully entitled to develop the property in question for four-plexes without seeking approval from the Commission. The property is zoned R-3 and permits development of multi-family housing without any obtaining of a conditional use permit by the developer. The question for the Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment is NOT whether this particular project is wise, or whether it will even be practical, but rather, whether Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 21 of 27 . . . it meets the requirements for the issuance of a conditional use permit. The Commission found that the application met all of the requirements of the Code save two: 1) that the proposed use is not consistent with the purposes of Chapter 21 of the Code in that it will depress and destabilize the value of property in Seward, and 2) that the value of adjoining property will be significantly impaired. These two findings by the Commission were, we believe, based on the evidence before it from the public and from the petitioners. We have reviewed that same material, and in addition, we have conducted an additional public hearing and we reach the opposite conclusions. General Property Values: We are not convinced that property values as a whole in Seward will be adversely affected or destabilized by the construction of the project. Again, we are concerned about the incremental number of units over that which would be permitted without the conditional use permit process under the R-3 zone classification. We thus have an increment of as small as twelve additional units. At the other extreme, and assuming there is NO Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 22 of 27 . . . development at all on the property, the largest increment would be the full project, or 24-units.l/ In either event, we are unconvinced there would be a significant impact on the value of real estate in Seward in general, or a destabilizing effect. We base our conclusion on the evidence before us and our years of experience as residents in the community. There is substantial evidence there is a need for this type of housing in Seward. The survey prepared and submitted in accordance with the FmHA financing information we believe demonstrates at least a perception of demand for this type of housing. We take note of the general economic conditions in Seward. Based on the evidence before us we do not believe the project would have a significant negative or destabilizing impact on real estate values in Seward. Seward is a growing community. We take l/At least theoretically the petitioner could build as many as 52-units on the land in question. More likely the petitioner could construct one four-plex on each of the three principal lots witghout seeking a conditional use permit, or re-platting the property. Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 23 of 27 . . . note of the recent conclusion of the Spring Creek Correctional Center with over 150 permanent jobs and the lumber mill under construction by chugach Alaska. In many ways, Seward has been described as one of the bright spots in the Alaskan economy. We recognize that some foreclosures of rental units have taken place but we believe the general trend for rental ftti!3I'lt(, ''7t properties in Seward is improving. Mr. ~dLUY, the Kenai Borough ~ fl;~f S5().1- appraiser, gave his opinion that in January 1988 there was an average vacancy rate of approximately 25% of the available rental apartments in Seward. Six months later (August 1988) a survey was conducted by Mr. Martin. In that survey Mr. Martin concluded there were approximately 270 non-subsidized rental units in the community and approximately 125 that were subsidized for a total of approximately 400 units. Mr. Martin, based on a visual count survey, estimated 41 vacancies among all apartments in the community. This would be about a 10% vacancy rate. Assuming both Mr. Hardy's and Mr. Martin's work is accurate, and we have no basis or reason to conclude otherwise, the vacancy rate seems to be decreasing. This conclusion is further supported by Mr. Schaafsma, an appraiser, who indicated that in his opinion the vacancy situation appears to be improving "and the rents are stable." Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 24 of 27 . . . His letter to the Commission at the request of the Commission was dated November 22, 1988. We can find no basis for the Commission's conclusion that vacancy rates in Seward are "abnormally high." Even if it is, we are unconvinced the project contemplated by petitioner will have a significant detrimental impact on that vacancy rate. There was substantial evidence presented that the prospective tenants for the project are not in the same real estate market as the majority of the rental units on the market. Indeed, although Mr. Martin's survey disclosed 41 rental units vacant in the City, he noted there was a waiting list for those units that consist of subsidized housing, and that all of the subsidized housing rental units were full. We are not convinced there is a demonstrable cause and effect link between creating, on the one hand, low rent housing and an increase, on the other hand, of vacancies among non-subsidized housing. The City has experienced substantial construction of subsidized housing units in the past with no demonstrable impact on the value of property in the community as a whole. Impact on Adioininq Properties. Decision/Conditional Use permit/Page 25 of 27 . . . We can find virtually no evidence to support the proposition that the project will have an adverse impact on the value of adjoining property. We note that in Seward multi-family housing frequently adjoins single family residential areas and we have found no evidence of an adverse impact. Further, we note that so-called subsidized, multi-family housing has been constructed in the past with no apparent impact on the value of adjacent residential property. We also find that the restrictions suggested by the City administration, and specifically those in Mr. Martin's memorandum to the Commission of December 10, 1988, appear to be reasonably calculated to mitigate any adverse effect. The requirements of such items as paved and striped parking lots, street lights, and a vegetative buffer should provide adequate mitigation of any damage to adjoining property owners. We also note that the property in question has been zoned R-3 since at least 1985, and just this sort of development could reasonably have been expected by those who purchased property or constructed homes in the area. Conclusion. We agree with the Commission's findings and conclusions on most of the issues presented. The only significant difference in our review of the evidence and that of the Commission relates to Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 26 of 27 . . . the effect of this development on property values as a whole in the City and on the value of adjoining property. In those cases we are of the opinion that the Commission was in error in denying the conditional use permit. We REVERSE the decision of the Commission and REMAND the matter to the Commission for the ISSUANCE of a Conditional Use Permit to include the conditions set forth in the memorandum of Mr. Martin to the Commission dated December 10, 1988. The Commission may, in its discretion, further review the situation and provide for additional conditions not inconsistent with this decision. Decision/Conditional Use Permit/Page 27 of 27