08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilwoman Be'al asked whether' State F:ii1ance requ~s't~d the original developJi1~T1t o'f, the two pTbperti:c'sas one. Also, whether the Com~lsslonwas~ware of ~1r. .Damelson s plans to deve,lop the parc'el on the west at a densIty of 16 un.lts ~)er acre, and that e St.ate Finance had a buyer for that piece. Mr. Saul thought ~he. CIty ha~ m~de the . or-ig:inal requi'rem'ent for. development as one property. He saId the COmmISSJ.on ~as. not informed of the possible limitation to 16 units. And.alt.hought they were not Informed of a specific buyer, they were informed that would be a possible consequence of release of the smaller parcel. Councilman Bradley asked staff its thinking on the po'ssibil ~ty ~f need. for corrunerd.al uses' in that area in the future - 20 years or so ~. whether ~ t'mIght b~ better no~ to rezone this area. to R-2 PO at this time wi ththe ide'a that If commerClal needs dId develop it could occur as a cluster development, filling in this property,. rather than as strip zoning. He asked staff where o~her co~merc~al development mIght o~cur in that area if this property was filled in wIth resIdentIal use. Ha ~hought thIS issue tied in with the Livingston & Blayney report [a study of commercIal uses now under consideration] and his concern was that if residential development occur:ed at .this location it would be creating another commercial node at some other locatIon. Mr. Saul answered that if the property was retained under the commonly accepted classi- fication of community commercial, the parcel could support 40,000 or more population. There was no "black and white" answer, he said, because it would depend upon the nature of what went in. If the entire parcel was developed in offices, it would not constitute what is normally considered community commercial type use. Whether there would be need in the future for more commercial use, he thought, would be a matter of judgment. He thought the overall development pattern in the Willakenz:ie area should be taken into consideration and noted the relative substantial commercial development there new _ Oakway Mall, along both sides of Coburg Road, Goodpasture Island area, etc. He said e it was the Commission's judgment that the existing undeveloped commercial areas were adequate to serve much of the existing and potential residential development. He added that there may be a future need for commercial uses north of the Belt Line, but that would depend on annexation. Councilwoman Shirey thought Mr. Bradley's concerns would be asking property owners to hold their properties until there might be a need for commercial development. Councilman Murray was not persuaded to the CommiSSIon's recommendation that unification of the two parcels was essential. He stated he would make a motion adverse to the Commission's recommendation with the understanding that the issue would be referred to a joint Commission/Council session - approve rezoning of the parcel east of Willakenzie Road to R-2 PO, approve zoning. of the parcel west of Willakenzie Road to R-2 SR, and not to insist on tying those two parcels together for development under one ownership. If there would not be automatic referral to a joint session, he said, then he would move for referral. Mayor Anderson said either motion would be appropriate but asked for rebuttal first. I-A-S Mr. Miller reminded the Council that State Finance paid a substantial portion of the cost for improvement and extension of Willakenzie Road to the west which accounted for the small sliver of land on the west side. The extension of that street, he said, was to allow a larger piece of land for a major commercial development. However, a number of factors prevented that from occurring - change in concept of regional center requir- ing two major department stores, development of Valley River,.etc. They preferred now staying with the R-2 PO development, and he noted that the Commission and staff were - in accord with that request. Mr. Miller thought development of the parcel on the west side under R-2 SR zoning would best utilize the property with that adjoining to the west rather than with something across the street. He urged the Council to allow separation of the parcels and developmeht under different ownerships, and reaffirmation of the R-2 PO zoning on the main parcel. 440 8/11/75 - 3