03/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony, and a short recess was taken. Councilman Murray asked, referring to Item C-4 under land use policies, whether changes in commercial zones were contemplated. It was explained that the intent was only to study land currently zoned for commercial use. 11 76.' , -~ Councilwoman Campbell asked about access to Mr. Reithel's property. Planning Director ex- plained that his property was outside the urban service boundary and that there was access via Bloomberg Road. Decision on an extension of the interchange from LCC campus to the north probably would not be made until it was decided whether to include the LCC drainage basin within the urban service boundary, and a recent recommendation of the 1990 Plan review com- mittee was to not include it. So that area, he said, would not be affected by the Laurel Hill plan at this time. In answer to Mrs. Campbell's question about County involvement since' part of the valley was outside the City, Planning Director answered that there had been con- tact with the County throughout the process of developing the plan. It had been adopted by the County' with two exceptions relating to urban development in County areas as designated in the 1990 General Plan. He commented on the difficulty of the planning for transportation in the valley, also in answer to Mrs. Campbell, because of lack of a general transportation plan and the need for determination on arterials to be made in the ltghtof total transporta- tion situation for the entire region. The policies suggested in the Laurel Hill plan seemed appropriate on an interim basis until a total transportation plan was adopted. Councilwoman Beal commented on the implications and effect adopted city policies for the Laurel Hill area could have on other neighborhoods and on the growth of the entire city. She felt careful and detailed discussion was necessary before adoption, and suggested rev~ewing the policies one by one, separating those which Council might wish to discuss at greater length. 1253 - At Councilman Keller's request, Manager explained the resolution prepared by the Attorney's office' for adoption of the Laurel Hill plan if that action was taken. The resolution clarified that any adopted plan would have no effect on City policy on controlled income/rent housing if the resolution was adopted. Mayor Anderson asked the Planning Commission's intent in asking "recognition" of proposals, goals, etc., in the Plan. Mr. Hoffman replied that it was realized certain neighborhood proposals and goals could not be adopted as city policy, but they were important and could be influencing factors on any decision the city would make. He added that the Commission recom- mendation was for adoption as city policy only those policy statements in the plan, but the Council should recognize the balance of the plan was also an important part of neighborhood recognition. Mayor Anderson and Councilman Williams referred to Section I - Lane Use and Future Urban Design, Item C-3, and wondered if it was proper to deny construction on the basis of lack of adequate public facilities. Planning Director answered that the city probably could not deny building permit because of the lack of one public service, but lack of a combination of services could restrict development. Betty Niven added that the concern in this regard was that an apartment complex might pre-empt the share of available services to the point where none would be left for other types of development. . Mayor Anderson called attention to need for grammatical clarification in Item C-5, Section I. Suggestion was to place a period after the word "housing," delete the words "and further sug- gest that," and start a ne~ sentence reading "Developers should be.. .." 1395 Councilman Hershner asked for a definition of "arterial" as it was referred to in Section II- Transportation, Item C-l,2,3. It was described as any through street serving other than just the abutting properties or those in the immediate vicinity. Councilman Williams asked whether in the staff's judgment existing transportation routes in the Laurel Hill area were adequate to serve the potential number of people in that and the surrounding area; that is, if the Council adopted Items C-l,2,and 3 as written would it be likely a future Council would have to revoke that action. Manager explained that staff would have preferred the items referred to included as proposals rather than as statements to be adopted as city policy. During hearings before the Planning Commission the question was raised that development of an overalf transportation plan could result in a proposal con- trary to those three statements. To qualify the statements and protect against that type of conflict the statement at the beginning of Section II - Transportation was included to provide that the section was designed to provide a sound set of goals, policies, and pro- posals until a systematic transportation and traffic plan for the whole valley, city and region could be completed. Manager said he personally didn't see that inclusion of those three policy statements would create a problem since eventually there would be a transporta- tion plan developed and adopted before any major project 'in the Laurel Hill valley would be proposed. Manager said the Commission felt inclusion of the. qualifying statement would adequately condition the three items in question so that they could be left in the policy section. He said, in answer to Mr. Williams, that if an overall trnasportation plan was . -'3 3/ll/74 - 6