08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

No 'ex parte confaC'ts':or other reasons' for confliCt of :interest' were 'declared by I..:A:-3 Council members; r>1.anning Commission staff notes, and minutes o'f Jury :1, 1975 were made a, part o'f this record by 're~erence thereto. . .' " '., ' . Council Bill No. 918 '-' Re'zoning to R-2' PO area west of WIllakeD-Zle' Road north of C~l Young Road west df Coburg Road. retain- lngR-2PD"zonin'g east o'f Willakenzie Road.n6rth ofCal Young Road, and re- quiring single ownership and development of the two properties, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present reqJlestin,g that it.be read in fulL Council ~oman Shirey a:sked why .thePhinning Commis'sion 'recommended' aga'1nst separation I -A-4 b'f the.two p'arce.ls.. Mr. Saul answered that primarily it was a matter of judgment., The, property west of Wiliakenz:ie is a small, narrow parcel ,of awkward shap~. he saId, and it w.as the Commission's judgment that while credit for density could be retained in development of that piece, it would be better if it was joined with the larger parcel ,east of the Roa:d., Councilman Bradley asked whether the city or the applicant would have the burden of proof under Fasano regulations in this zoning. He wondered if the request for R-2 PD zoning was in compliance with the General Plan designation for commercial development. Mr. Saul said burden of proof would probably rest with both the city and the applicant. The request primarily was for reaffirmation of action taken in 1967 concerning a larger parcel, and findings supporting the reaffirmation were spelled out in staff notes previously referred to. He explained that the 1990 Plan indicates community commercial development at that location [Coburg/Willakenzie/Cal Young] and surrounding that, medium density residential use. The Commission has indicated that the community c6mmer~ial function is served by existing deve~opment ~f Coburg Plaza ~nd,tha~ along ... both sldes of Coburg Road north and south of W1llakenz1e. and the Comml~Slon 1S now ~ encouraging a number of medium density residential developments surrounding that commercial area. Mr. Bradley wondered then if it was the Commission's suggestion that the commercial need was satisfied in that area. Mr. Saul said that was the Commission's judgment in the past and reaffirmed by its recommendation in this instance. He pointed out that if the C-2 zoning was retained, multiple-family residential development would be possible as a conditional use. Councilman Keller expressed concern about splitting a property by building a street then setting guidelines on developmen~ of the two properties. He wondered when Willa- kenzie Road was put in and what the intent of the Commission was in a situation such as this. He also asked about the recommendation on the parcel west of Willakenzie Road for park use. Mr. Saul thought that Willakenzie at that location was built about 1966 and said the zoning and proposed development of the property had the "blessing of the Council" at that time. He said the Commission's judgment at this time was that the parcels could be better developed as one rather than separated. With reference to the recommendation for park use. he said the primary question was use of the long narrow strip on the north portion of the parcel west of Willakenzie for out- door space to accommodate the heavier development on the southern portion: Councilwoman Shirey didn't think it was normal practice to have a street running through a planned unit development. She wondered if people on the smaller parcel would have access to facilities on the other side and whether the density on the larger parcel to the east would be increased. Mr. Saul said there would be fewer tit units on the small parcel, that it was the Commission's intent to increase the density - on the east side. 8/11/75 - 2 ~.~~