CC_Minutes_2015_0323 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 23,2015 Page 30 In addition, before that input process, Ms. McCormick noted the considerable amount of communication in the neighborhood and concerns with the economic tax base of the area requiring the use of industrial uses for this area to adequately address that tax base. Therefore, Ms. McCormick questioned if people were re- sponding to their feelings on best uses or which of several choices was the best answer; causing her to have concerns about the quality of the responses. Ms. McCormick addressed several questions about staff's list of eight questions. Specific to the petitions, one seeking general input on the Twin Lakes area and the other specifically addressing height restrictions, Ms. McCormick noted that each contained 80 signatures and asked that they be given some weight in the Council's decision-making as well. Until the last few moments of this discussion, when Mayor Roe suggested reopen- ing discussions to rezone to CMU from HDR, Ms. McCormick stated that she felt compelled to remind the City Council that they had previously promised the neighborhood a seat at the table since initial discussions began last September and this good faith planning process. However, Ms. McCormick expressed her disap- pointment that to-date, no dialogue had occurred. Ms. McCormick offered her support of a brownfields consultant,but reiterated the neighborhood's request for a voice as part of the three-legged stool going for- ward. Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council hold a work session specific to this, and suggested it be done in April. Ms. McCormick offered to bring for- ward community representatives, suggesting five property owners, to talk some things through. From what she had heard tonight, Ms. McCormick opined that everyone could be satisfied with the outcome of that discussion, but in all fair- ness, she thought it would be good to have that discussion and raise some of those points, especially in subarea 4. Ms. McCormick noted the considerable conversa- tions to-date about that area, and as noted by Councilmember Etten, she suggested that the Vogel's may also appreciate some certainty as well as the neighbor seeing their interests being supported. While not opposed to industrial uses, Ms. McCormick noted in the staff report there had been no mention of the comprehensive plan or community survey, and she wanted to point out that previous discussions had indicated the significant in- dustrial area of the community would be west of I-35W, and development further to the east would be more similar to that of the CenterPointe development, mov- ing industrial uses far away from this area to the west side. Ms. McCormick not- ed that, in reviewing the zoning map displayed by staff, a specific industrial use was not included in the CMU designated zoning district. In addressing the community survey, Ms. McCormick noted that 51% of respond- ents felt the most connection was to their neighborhood, while 32%rated safety as a primary feature in that comfort level. Ms. McCormick opined that there was a