City Council (View All)
Monday, June 02, 2008
MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, June 2, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Chapman called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilors Hartzell, Hardesty, Navickas and Jackson were present. Councilor Silbiger and Mayor Morrison were absent.
1. Look Ahead Review.
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Council Look Ahead.
2. Review of Regular Meeting Agenda of June 3, 2008
Arterial Setback Ordinance
City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified two options for the Arterial Setback Ordinance which included some generic language.
Councilor Hardesty was not opposed to the proposed generic language but voiced her concern that the setback ordinance is a big change and that it overshadows the sidewalk requirement.
Staff recommended holding to the standard and offered to bring back suggestions for language that the council could discuss to address concerns voiced.
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan Project
City Council and the some members of the Planning Commission jointly heard an update from consultants from Jason Graf, Crandall-Arambula and Alan Snook, DKS and Associates.
The report offered four alternatives on the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. These options included data on Housing, Office, Retail/Commercial, Industrial, Parks Open Space and Park and Ride spaces.
The consultants explained the process and schedule. These included an informational assembly, reconnaissance, conceptual plan and review, plan refinement (if needed) and then the final plan. The results of the workshops that were held were and goals were identified. The goals were based on circulation, land use, policies and regulations.
Agenda - Results of Workshop
Goals identified – Concepts, Light industrial, Office Campus
Presented response sheet and introduced housing into development.
Option B – Included transit and neighborhood center.
Option C – Mix of office and industrial uses.
Option D – Office/Employment parcels – served larger employment types.
Presented visual diagrams on all options with transportation concepts and noted that Option D was the preference by those that attended the public meetings.
Vehicle Trips comparison and transportation analysis was presented along with comparisons on each of the options and how these trips would effect Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road. A new Connector Roadway was presented and potential for realignment verses existing roadway was discussed.
Council and Planning Commission members provided feedback and a variety of issues, including:
· The roadway section should be three lanes versus five lanes regardless of the plan
· Discussion about transit, rail and bike/pedestrian
· That the plan should look at desired employment density and a variety of other performance-based regulations rather than looking at a narrow, band of uses
· General discussion that there may be certain types offices and manufacturing-type uses that could be compatible and could generate the concentration of employment that is desired;
· Should look at the possibility of consolidating parking and related costs
· Look at the
· The desire for environmental and sustainability concepts integrated into the planning and design regulations.
It was also determined that there needed to be further discussion on the following:
· Definition of “Green Design”
· Mixing light industrial with Option D
· Maintaining employment density
· Reconsider transportation figures by taking into the current cost of fuel
· Finding a way to make this development affordable at all stages
· Environmental issues associated with housing
· Assumptions being discussed should be better researched
· Market analysis completed
· Consider using other term than “Office Park”
· Affordable housing analysis
· Goal should not necessarily be to “beautify” the area and
· Be creative in the design.
Continued discussion on setback ordinance
Council continued to discuss the difficulty with following the existing interpretation and what was being proposed in the ordinance. Staff was presented with several questions regarding the proposed ordinance that the council would like to discuss when the ordinance is presented for approval. Suggestion was made that this ordinance be sent back to the Planning Commission and Tree Commission for further evaluation.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:26 p.m.