07/22/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I units would provide housing qt lowe+ rentals than now available in the city. With regard to, site review procedvres, ~e sa~d he felt that procedure would be more appropriate in order to k.el?P "the cost of the proj ect down. ' PlanI)ed unit development procedures, he said, would be more costly and more time 'consuming., He said the roads', sewers, schools, mass ,,' ~ transit were all 'available; the project would be filling in vacant land as indicated by ~ the General Plan; and the housing units would meet a need in the city. . Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented; (1310) Councilman McDonald wondered if the basis on which Mr. Safley's appeal had been filed were presented to the Planning Commission. Manager answered that he could not say whether items had been presented to the Planning Commission in,the form stated in the appeal document, but there were none of them that would have been new to the Commission and which had not in some manner been discussed by the Commission. I Councilman Murray asked what was known of the County's plans for installations in the area under discussion and, with regard to timing, what was expected to happen in that area if this rezoning was denied at this ,time. Manager answered ,that,he understooq'designing was now in process for County shops to the north. Also, there had been serious consideration by the County administration of a sheriff's facility north of'that but he didn't know whether a firm agreement had been reached; With regard to timing, he said that the Commission saw I this as an opportunity area and thought there should be exploration ,of ways to resolve the conflict between land uses west of the Delta and those east of the Delta. That could best be accomplished through a comprehensive effort at developing a total specific land use pattern that would assure that this particular project would fit and would not hinder what ~ might otherwise be suitable land use; it was considered desirable to achieyean overall land ,., use pattern prior to proceeding ~i th a small segment of the, area. ~ Councilwoman Campbell felt t,he proposed proj ect would not be a proper use of ,that land and (1368) thought staff recommendations made sense. She expressed concern with the apparent emphasis on putting housing "just anyplace" in order to relieve the need. Councilwoman Beal echoed that opinion, saying the Planning Commission and staff instead of looking at the total housing needs were looking at the total- land use situation. She, suggested a probably need for determining where future housing should or should not be located, what areas should be saved for housing, single- and multiple-family, and'other types of development. In response to Councilman Hershner, Mr. 'Saul said there were two major parcels of land lying between Delta and the mobile qome park to the east, one under option to Mr. Safley; ~our parcels total, including the subject property and the mobile home site. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to refer the appeal to a joint meeting (1398) of the City Council and Planning Commission. In making the motion Mr. Hershner said he believed from the, testimony pre~ented, at this - " , hearing and in the record that the proposed development would ,serve a public ~eed and that this, property probably was best suited for that particular need.' He expressed concern that _ if the request was denied there seemed to be a feeling that the entire area should,be ~ restudied. And then if commercial and/or industrial uses were extended to the east ,of Delta Highway they would in time extend so as to be adjacent to~,the m9bile home park. He expressed concern too with the seemingly recurrent occasions on which the Council was confronted with requests to make more comprehensive studies of areas, referring to the recent ,ones in the South Hills and Goodpasture Island. He said he didn't want to imply he was opposed to comprehensive planning but he did want the oPP9rtunity to meet with the Commission and pursue designation of this area as it appeared in the General Plan. Councilman McDonald said h~ would vote against the motion,. He said the issue was an appeal (1424) from a Planning Commission denial ofre;wning and if a motion was carried not to uphold, that recommendation then it would automatically go back to a joint Council/Commission meeting. f Councilman Williams saw nothing wrong with a motion calling for a joint meeting when it appeared Council consensus was not in agreement with the Comm~ssion's recommendation. But Mr. McDonald thought the motion should be either to deny or uphold the appeal so that the issue would be either decided or as a matter of course go back to the Planning Commission for joint discussion wi th the Council. Councilman Hershner said his motion was made on the supposition. that it was proper as an alternative to a motion upholding the appeal. Manager thought it, was the Chair's prerogative to rule whether the motion was appropriate. 'He added that in the past it had been understood that Council action adverse to, Planning Commission_ recommendation would automatically refer the question to a joint meeting. He thought this ~ motion appropriate although it did not indicate the attitude of the Council on this parti- cular issue. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, pointed out Code provisions calling for, Council request for further Commission report when there was a.motion contrary to,the Commission's recommendation, so in that sense it would seem the motion was going directly to the ultimate action which would indicate contemplation of some action contrary to the recommendation. 7/22/74 - 4 2.~~