Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br />/]'\~ILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />Agenda Item 2.B. <br /> <br />March 10, 2004 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and Council <br />Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator <br /> <br />Aaron Parrish, Assistant City Administrator~ <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />TCAAP Phase III Planning <br /> <br />ENCLOSURES: <br /> <br />1. Revised Scope <br />2. Phase III Process Diagram (Will be provided at the meeting) <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />In July of2002, the City CounciI.approved a Scope of Services Agreement with DSU and a team <br />of subconsultants in order to create a master plan for the TCAAP property, Necessary <br />comprehensive plan and zoning_code amendments are also included within that scope of work, <br />The planning was divided into five phases, The first two phases, which included an analysis of <br />the site and the development of vision and goals, has been completed, The budget in the <br />currently approved scope of services agreement is $483,770, Approximately $196,046 has been <br />spent to date, <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />In working through the overall approach to phase III of the planning with DSU, it was <br />determined that additional meetings at both the Advisory Panel and City Council level would be <br />necessary in order to develop a preferred land use alternative (the primary outcome of phase III <br />planning is a preferred land use alternative; the creation of design standards/guidelines is also an <br />outcome), The revised approach to phase III is illustrated on the attached diagram. <br /> <br />In essence, two additional meetings, a visual preference survey, additional meetings with key <br />stakeholders, and the creation of a "PDF Smart Map" have been added compared to the original <br />scope of services, A visual preference survey is a tool that will allow the Advisory Panel to <br />articulate what types of design features and structures they prefer. This will then be incorporated <br />into the Advisory Panel and Council's review/approval of design standards for the transfer area, <br />Additional meetings with key stakeholders (MNDOT, etc , , ,) to assess on potential deficiencies <br />and/or the feasibility of the three alternatives is also factored into the revised scope, Finally, the <br />