02/28/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-----' a very high income to the city for operating services. He s~id that the city was clearly ahead in operat~ng costs when deal1ng with new construction. As far as the cap1tal outlay costs, he said there was no way of knowing what those wo~ld ~e.. Mr. Delay replied he was dismayed at the fact that the.c1ty 1~ 1nc~pable of determining the costs for capital outlay 1n deal1ng w1th infillinq and annexation. Mayor Keller then stated that the economic' study was the City Council's j?b, and h: felt it was not fair to intimidate staff when the C1ty Counc11 was to blame and had not given the economic study priority. Mr. Lieuallen asked why this particular kind of ho~sing pr?ject qualified to meet the needs more than other areas 1n the C1ty. Mr. Saul replied that the area was suitable for urb~n devel- opment and referred Council to several Staff Notes 1n the Plan- ning Commission minutes. Mr. L~euallen then asked what th: . density for single-family dwell1ngs would be. Mr. Saul sa1d the zonlng recommended by the Planning Commission does allow for a variety of development types and that this was the reason for PUD attachments t~ the~. Mr. Lieuallen then asked if there was a need to have res1dent1al development on such large portions of land as opposed to smaller portions in the area. Mr. Saul said the bes'~ answer he could give would be that both types are needed, depending on the range and scale of development being discussed. . Mr. Bradley then asked what should be the role of agricultural land use within the metropolitan area. Mr. Saul replied that the Council had _ made one policy choice throughout formulation of the general plan, and to a great extent, that policy choice is that at least within the pro- jected urban service area, agricultural use is at best interim. Mr. Bradley asked if there was any other reason to have agricultural land use, other than interim use waiting for the expansion of urban services within a metropolitan area? Mr. Saul said he could not respond in a narrow sense, that to reach a valid determination, staff would have to look at present and projected housing needs, transportation conditions, the economy and the availability of land. Resolution No. 2634--Forwarding to Boundary Commission rec- ommendation for annexation of property north of Beltline Road and east of Coburg Road was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Delay then read a statement outlining his concerns for annexation and rezoning of this property. He said the issues of growth and economic development needed to be faced in relation to t~e cost !o local government, inequitable'prop- erty taxes, C1ty cutt1ng staff services, the raising of an additional $2 million to maintain city services and the com- ~act growth policy stating of infilling the city before annex- 1n9 areas outside the city. He said that the impact of growth to the city could mean a larger tax cost as there would be a necessity for more schools, more police protection, more fire e. ~. 2/28/7 7 --14 /50