04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Councilwoman Beal thouyht the Planning Commission TL'commt'/ldiltion was S.:lY'- ing detailed planning for development of the w('stslde area could not take place until the refinement study was completed, recognizing the L&B report was focused on retail floor space and the idea of anot,her large department store as anchor for expansion of the mall to the west. ' Councilman Hamel thought the Livingston & Blayney report was exactly what the Council had requested. Options were presented for Council and Com- mission consideration and now it was up to them to decide what to do. He pointed out that the report was not; "a law." He thought the Commission recommendations should be turned over to the people who would suggest answers as to what should be done. Councilman Haws was not sure he fully understood the need to expand to the west from the downtown mall. He asked who would acquire the land, who would develop it. He wondered if this would be in conflict with plans of the Westside Neighborhood Association. Assistant Manager answered-that the refinement plan under discussion would deal with the central business district, the question of who buys, how developed, would be discussed in that refinement. And that site immed,iately west of the downtown mall was chosen because public control was already there. It was not so much the idea of new retail outlets, he said, as retaining existing outlets to keep the market area there functioning. He added that the whole question of the westside commercial district would be before the Council soon because of jurisdictional disputes between neighborhood organizations which would have to be res0lved. There was basic conflict as to whether the area would develop in residential uses, preserved in its present format, or ex- clusively commercial - perhaps even another civic center. In response to Mr. Haws statement that his understanding of this recommendation was that expansion of the mall westward was the accepted concept, Assistant Manager said it wasn't. However, it appeared to be going in that direction and that issue had to be determined. e - Councilman Bradley sa,id he was assuming that acceptance of this recommenda- tion would make a priority item of the L&B recommendation and would in fact lead to rehabilitation of the downtown area. Mr. Chenkin said he hoped Council members were not under the impression that the Livingston & Blayney recommendations in the Commission's official report were to be acted upon. He explained that the Council was to be concerned only with recommendations presented by the Commission and pointed out the difference between the two as they appeared in the official report. Councilman Murray noted the intensive land speculation occurring in the area immediately ~est of downtown in the last few years and its debilitating effect on that neighborhood. He wondered if there could be any assurance that same effect wouldn't be moved a little farther westward if this recom- mendation was accepted.' Assistant Manager noted that issue - the question of compatibili ty w,i th an adjoining area - could be raised in debate on the refinement plan for the area. Mr. Murray said he would like to see some conditions placed on approval of the Commission recommendation on Recommendation 2 for the protection of development of housing near the central business district. He suggested that any development plan would pay careful attention to the preservation of rehabitable housing, problems of excessive traffic on residential streets, and possible speculative zoning pressures on adjacent areas. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. flamel to amend the mot,ion on acceptance of the Plann.ing Commission recommendation on No.2 to include the condition that any development plan near the central business district pay careful attention to the preserva- tion of rehabitable housing, problems of excessive traffic on residential streets, and possible speculative zoning pressures on adjacent areas. \ \0-'1 4/14/75 - 15