12/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and Mr. Hatfield both supported the proposed refinement. However, they called'attention to the number of mobile home parks in the Bethel area and expressed the hope that mobile homes could be spread throughout the community rather than being located in one neighborhood. They said the Active Bethel . Citizens also supported the refinement. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Ms. Decker noted that the Plan allows enough flexibility to permit additional multiple-family and commercial uses in the Jacobs Street area on a condi- tional use basis. i Councilman Murray suggested changing "older parts of the city" - in reference to development of park land and open space - to "other parts of the city." He also asked for elaboration of scheduled improvements mentioned for High- way 99N in the next five years. Ms. Decker said the reference to park lands was to emphasize the higher ratio of developed parks in older parts of the city when compared to the Bethel area. There was no objection to changing the text to read "other parts of the city." With regard to Highway 99N improvement, she said that was included to provide for sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, scheduled to start in about two years, and was an item on a list of improvements planned for the Bethel area. Don Gilman, assistant public works director, added that there was need for the improvement, especially for pedestrian facilities and control of curb cut access. Counciiman Murray wondered whether identification of historic landmarks should become, a standard part of refinement plans, whether any were being identified in the Bethel area. He also asked what consideration was given to what ESATS might call'for in the Bethel area. Ms. Decker answered that this refinement study was e initiated prior to the creation of an historic preservation program, but that did not preclude identifying such structures. She thought it a good idea to in- cludethat as a part of a refinement plan. With regard to ESATS, Ms. Decker said' t~at impact that an extension of Highway 126 would have on the Bethel area was pointed out to people working with staff on the study. The study itself did not attempt to establish any limitations, she said, only to call attention to issues that should be noted. She agreed with Mr. Murray's statement, as did residents of the area, she said, that it seemed appropriate to point out par- ticular concerns of a local area in establishing a regional transportation plan. Councilman Hamel asked why expansion of the airport was felt detrimental to the Bethel area. Ms. Decker answered that that statement was a part of the ABC goals and objectives statement. It was a reflection of thinking in the Bethel neighborhood that substantial expansion of the airport could mean noise pollution. That was not in the final plan, she ?aid. In response to Councilman Haws, Ms. Decker said her understanding was that a good deal of construction between 1950 and 1960 led to septic tank failure, thereby partially contributing to annexation of the area. ~1r . Haws then suggested dele- tion of the word "important" in the statement recognizing mobile homes as an "im- portant housing option." He also asked for explanation of arriving at the criteria for allocation of housing. Ms. Decker said staff would have no objection to removing the word "important" as referred to. That statement, she said, was included because in working with the ABC land use committee they expressed the ,impDrtance of'acknowledging mobile homes as a vital housing option. With regard ,:to allocation, ,_ she said that was a proposal, not a policy statement. It would -- "provide guidelin"esfor administration in implementing housing policy with regard to panhandles. She said the Planning Commission is now studying panhandles, so :t,his p'rovisi,on, could, change. , 12/~:l7-S - ,2 -, 033 <. ~ ..,~', L:>._'~~