CC_Minutes_2015_0413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 13,2015 Page 24 decision, and given the discussion needed on the broader Twin Lakes area, not just the subareas, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the dates for input and actual decision dates were separate meetings. Councilmember Laliberte expressed con- cern that sufficient time was allowed for the community to weigh in before deci- sion time. Mr. Bilotta clarified that staff's intent with the timeline was to break the discus- sion into smaller pieces for everyone to better understand it going forward with the process. Mr. Bilotta opined that part of the derailment in moving text amendments forward in the summer of 2014 was due to complications from those discussions and lack of understanding by all parties on design standards and uses, causing the public to be unclear on what was happening in order to provide their input. Mr. Bilotta advised that staff intended to bring forward (May 4) the draft use table, providing a series of columns designating current regulations, whether there was a change proposed last summer, results of input received to-date, and where that was leading permitted and/or prohibited uses, and those areas appear- ing to have clear consensus between the City Council and community. Mr. Bilot- ta clarified that he didn't anticipate any formal City Council action on May 4, as that information would not yet be put together, and the process needed to include bringing any consensus back to the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council on those items they felt comfortable with. Mr. Bilotta assured all that this process should allow for a lot of opportunities for public input. Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she was not opposed to getting started and making the decisions, but she just wanted to be clear and not have the public get caught by surprise. As a practical matter and based on past discussion, Mr. Bilotta advised that it was staff's intent to hire a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consultant as the process was introduced. Mr. Bilotta noted that this may involve a new column for the use table to accommodate that in certain areas where the use may be acceptable with a PUD versus a Conditional Use, especially those uses that have served as public lightening rod issues in the past. One of those issues noted by Mr. Bilotta was the public's sensitivity to height for new developments. Mayor Roe sought clarification on staff's intent for the use table and whether it would be for the entire area or broken down by subareas. Mr. Bilotta responded that staff would initially bring it before the City Council based on current conditions; and from that discussion anticipated uses defined from one subarea to another. As a result, Mr. Bilotta stated that he saw the result of that being the concept and development of subdistricts in the Community Mixed Use (CMU) designated zoning district (e.g. CMU-2) depending on how uses come forward. However, Mr. Bilotta advised that he was not presupposing anything at this point, and suggested starting with a general discussion first.