Item A: Ordinance Amending Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan (Huntington Crossing)

Home Browse Search

Mr. Reed briefly described the scope of the proposed project, which would.be a mix of town homes, some standard apartment units, and garden apartment type units. He said that statewide planning goals and the Willakenzie Refinement Plan policies offered policy support for the requested change. Mr. Reed said that conclusion was supported by the staff recommendation for approval of the request. He said that as a result of the Metro Plan amendment, the Willakenzie Refinement Plan Map would also be amended. No policy or text changes were being requested. . Mr. Reed reviewed the public outreach done by his firm with neighborhood groups, neighborhood. property owriers associations, and other interested parties. He called attention to Exhibit M, which was a flier regarding a neighborhood meeting held by his firm. He said that most surrounding property owners had no opinion while others supported the proposal for residential development in favor of an industrial use. Mr. Reed thought the proposal an opportunity to create more high-density residential development in the community. The location was supported by planning policies. He "believed there was a need for the housing contemplated if the city was to increase in density, particularly along its major arterials as a means of supporting mass transit. Mr. Reed requested approval of the' proposal from the two commissions. Mr. Duncan called for questions and comments from the commissioners. Responding to a question from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Reed said he had examined what types of industrial uses could be located on the property and the opportunities that existed, which were somewhat speculative. The installation of infrastructure to serve a commercial development was costly and he would not recommend that his client build a commercial building on speculation. Mr. Ward also wanted to realize income through the life of the property and already managed another residential development to the north. He noted that The Register-Guard owned about 80 to 90 acres of industrial property in a much more development~ready state, and he did not think it prudent for the Wards to take that approach to the property. " Mr. Siekiel-Zdzie~icki asked if Mr. Reed had met with Ms. Van, who had offered testimony regarding the application, "and if she was aware of the final plan. Mr. Reed said he had talked to Ms. Van several times on the telephone but never met with her as she lived in Phoenix. She had been provided a copy of the plan. Ms. Nichols asked when the Chad Drive extension would be built. Mr. Reed said that road project was originally scheduled to be under construction in 2007 and was now moved to 2008. The street was now dead-ended but would be extended to become a major collector and a possible route for EmX. Mr. Dignam noted the changes that would be made to the Metro Plan Diagram if the proposal were adopted, and said the adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. He asked Mr. Reed to comment. Mr. Reed referred to his application, which included a fuller explanation. He said that 30 years ago the proposal would have been called a "spot zone" and it would have been considered a bad idea. That was no longer the case. Communities formerly designated large swathes"of land for a single use, creating more need for residents to drive and increasing the need for additional road capacity. It was now considered it acceptable to mix uses and the issue became a matter of compatibility in terms of design. Mr. Reed pointed out that the planned unit development process would provide another opportunity for the adjacent neighbors to provide input on the compatibility issue if the applica- October 24, 2006 Pag~ 3