01/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Manager for purpose of clarification explained the Bar-Bre request for annexation of property east of the proposed rezoning now under discussion. That annexation request was based on some understanding that there would be multiple-family or mobile hom~ development. One reason the annexation request was rejected was be- cause it would have created an "island" subject to annexation by unilateral action of the city. It was presumed that the neighborhood organization now being formed would comprise people from both inside and outside the city who could decide whe- ther annexation was desired. Manager thought there might be confusion between that issue and the one now being discussed which had been "in the mill" since the rezoning proposal ,submitted by Mike Safley and postponed in order to try to develop a pattern of zoning that would be compatible with the neighborhood and developed properites to the east and which a number of property owners would find suitable. Mr. Saul cited code provisions for notice of rezoning and gave details of how those code provisions were met. He referred to a request that staff comment on rezoning the property immediately east of Delta Highway to agricultural use and said that staff would not recommend that action since the property was well within the urban service area and within the city since at least 1970. He pointed out that if the General Plan was not imple~ented in that area - community commercial center sur- rounded by medium density residential use - the options were to amend the Plan to provide for alternate uses, and if the recommended alternate use was agricultural it would also carry a contingent recommendation for de-annexation. He added that even if the city de-annexed the property, it would have to be rezoned by the county and there was no guarantee that the county would rezone it for agricultural use. Councilman Murray wondered what opportunity there would be for further review of impact of industrial noise on the proposed medium density residential development. Mr. Saul replied that one of the primary reasons for recommending planned unit development procedures on the property was to assure retention of competent de- sign architects and acoustical engineers and an opportunity to review the specific plans. He said there would be public hearings during the PUD review process. Councilman Bradley asked about the need for more C-l zoning. He wondered if this rezoning for commercial use would have the effect of creating a regional shopping center because of available transportation facilities. Mr. Saul answered that the proposed rezoning for this area was recommended in the light of long-range develop- ment - an overall plan for the area. He had no specific response with r~gard to C-l zoning because commercial needs were listed in a much broader framework and not broken down between C-l, C-2 etc. The attempt in this instance was to provide com- munity comm~rcial zoning to ensure commercial needs for the nearby residential de- velopment. The General Plan, he said, encouraged more neighborhood centers to lessen the need for people having to travel to regional shopping centers.. He added that the range and uses of C-l would not approximate what would be needed to sustain a regional center, and the amount of land proposed for commercial use here would not be adequate for a regional center. Councilman Bradley then asked whether the credibility of the Willakenzie Interim Plan would hold in view of its being the basis to a substantial degree for the General Plan in this area. He wondered whether it might be appropriate to take another look at the Plan, changes might have occurred justifying an entirely new analysis of the entire area. Mr. Saul answered that the Willakenzie Plan was as credible and reliable as any planning document before the Council for adoption. It was his opinion that there were only a limited number of options for develop- ment of this property and he felt there were no others that would be any more desirable than the proposal presented if the area was accepted as being within the duban service boundary and suitable for urban level development. 1/27/75 - 4 20 (0755) e ( 08 32) (0859) - (0874) e