05/08/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e . ' plan to come before staff and Council, and he noted there was no way the plan could be developed without some inconsistencies. Implemen- tation of the plan is going to require rezoning or density limitations, and at that time changes will have to occur. However, he noted it was felt very important to push the major emphasis forward, but processes may have to be adjusted in the future. A short recess was taken. Mr. Delay requested staff address the concerns raised by Ms. Johnson. Ms. Decker said light industrial areas are designated. The plan speaks to the'kinds of uses allowed in the area now. The intent of that designation is not to rezone the area to exclude industrial and encourage residential, but to allow joint industrial and residential uses of existing structures. Presently, M-2 zoning does not allow residential use as an outright use. This reference simply said there are places where people can live and work in the same structure and specifically says it will not allow increase in residential use in the area because it is not a particularly desirable residential environment. Mayor Keller thought the issue was not 20 versus 30 units per acre. He wondered if that particular issue could be set aside, and reviewed for historical designation. In that light, he wondered what the pro- cess for Council would be. Mr. Porter said he could, not address the process issue as there had never been historical area designation before. The ordinance says the Historic Review Board can consider that, and have asked that that area be considered. Staff is pro- ceeding with background information to allow the Board to do so. The area designation would then go to Planning Commission before coming before Council. Mr. Porter said the problem with making that total area historical would be what impact would that have on the City's operating budget and how would that area be subsidized to maintain that H designation. Council could ask that that area be deleted and be acted on after the Historic Review Board brings the recommen- dation to Council. However, Mr. Porter did not know the time frame before the issue would come back before Council. Regarding whether 20 or 30 units per acre made any difference, Mr. Porter said ifit were reduced to 20 units per acre, there would be rezoning for each of.the properties; the present zoning of RG allows 30 units per acre. Mr. Obie felt the controversy was historic versus high density and he wanted to see the historic issue fully resolved before the issue of density was determined. Mr. Porter noted the area had had no drammatic changes for some time and did not see any major changes occurring. If Council was concerned about the historic designation issue, it could delay action on that particular area. The Planning Commission had spent considerable time debating the issue, but was uncertain as to what woul d resul t wi th that process. Mr. Obie felt if the historical issue could be resolved, he would be in favor of as much density as the area could stand because of its location to shopping, parks, and downtown area. He felt it did provide a unique opportunity for high-density living that could be 5/8/78--9 32.8