06/24/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, E.. . 'Annexation, DOerksen Property (between GoodpastlJ,re Island Road and Bel t Line Road across from K-Mart) - Request was received/rom Robert Moulton, attorney representing applicants for annexation of the supject property, for consideration /-. ,of the issuea~ this time now that the Livingstqp & Blayney interim report on ~. !annexation in the Goodpasture Island area had been received. Mr. Moulton said :the interim report recommended that annexation of the Doerksen property be al- 'lowed but with the clear under~tanding of all parties that there would be no , ,commitments made ,with regard to development. He asked that th~ Council forward I :a recommendation to the Boundary Commission where the annexation request was I :previously tabled awaiting a recommendation from the city. Mr. Moulton recog- :nized that the question of development of the property ~ould hav.e to come before I the Council after the final report was received from Livingston & Blayney but " : wanted the annexation question out of the way before that time to speed up the 'overall process of getting the property developed. Assistant Manager said that although it was apparent the property would eventually' become ~ part of the city there was a question of timing as to when that would . occur. I The emphasis in the Blayney report, he said, while saying the area could be annexed, recommended that annexation not occur until the city was ready to ad- ! dress' the total problem of development and density. Staff supported that stand. 'Mr. Moulton repeated his understanding of recommendation in the report that an- I ;nexation should proceed but with the clear understanding that there would be no I 'commitment to development until a development plan for the entire area was ready. i He said his clients understood that and agreed to that stipulation. I .. j ! 'Councilwoman Campbell asked for further staff clarification of the interim report , !in view of the differing interpretations. John Porter, planning director, said it would be a matter of judgment by the Council. He felt that the timing of ,annexation would not make much difference from a test standpoint. The matter of i :land use was of concern because one "scenario" for Goodpasture Island contemplated! housing in that area in conflict with the 1990 Plan. If the final Blayney report I 'indicated going toward housing it would mean amez:2dment \to the 1990 Plan and could :mean possibly two or three years before use of the Doerksen property would be de- ! termined. If the property was annexed then city taxes would be based onAGT zoned! , (County) land which in turn would put the pressure on the Council to allow some higher use. H~ added that Mr. Moulton un~er~too4 that problem but was willing to go ahead with the annexation. I " Assistant Manager said that because the matter did come up on the spur of the moment, not having been an item on the regular agenda, perhaps the Council would I want to review the Blayney interim report before . ,taking action. Planning Director! inoted too that the matter of annexation in l~ght~9t the,interim report had not yet: [been considered by the Planning Commission. It,~as understood the item would be i ientered on the consent calendar for the June 24 Council meeting where it could Co~m j ba__~egreg~te.dtQ~_~urt;h.e.r d:f:scussi.o.n i_fr~qu_et;ted. ..'. .- ..;e>~/J!}'E!!:_ ,'~ ..Approve.d L . Referred to Pian~- Cbmm. Robert Moulton, Attorney representing EmeraldiDel ta, in request for favorable recom- ' , - --'" mendation on annexation of the property in question, referred to the Livingston &. Blayney interim report which indicated the property should be annexed if that was what was wanted. Mr. . Moulton said the petitioners did wish the property annexed: and that t~ey would pay Cl!~ taxes. It was his hope the Council would recommend annexation in tlITle ~or July 11 ;Boun.dary Commission considera!~on'_._Ii:.said there was clear understanding that If the property was annexed there would~b~_~o .commitments with regard to its develop- ment, and that the current County AGT zone would persist. Councilman Keller sa~d his impression wa~ that action taken in committee was as requested by Mr. Moulton. Asslstant Manager explalned that there was no definitive action in com- mittee, that it was recognized the normal procedure on annexations was refferal to the Planning Commission for recommendations, so that was indicated on the consent calendar recognizing the item could pe segregated for further action if desired. ' The Cha~r ruled the action shown on the consent calendar - referring Item E (Doerksen annexatlon) to the Elanning Commission - would stand. Council~oman Campbell remarked on-;-the delay experienced by, the petitioners for this annexatlon and wondered when the final Livingston &. Blayney report would be completed. . She wanted the record to show there was at least one Council member concerned about the delay who felt action should be taken as rapidly as possible toa:c<;offiIJida.ate'.t'he~pe'titioner. Staff consensus was that ~lanning Commission consideration could take place in time f~r . recommendation to the Council at its July 22 meeting. 6(24(74 - ..15 ~ 224