CC_Minutes_2010_0726 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 26, 2010 Page 13 Councilmember Ihlan opined that, as part of the larger Comprehensive Plan process, there were a number of other anomaly properties that were proposed for changes to their land use designation that were not driven by the property owner; and further opined that the parcel was suitable for potential mixed use and/or higher density housing, since it already had infrastructure in place from it's previous use as an office building. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council needed to pay attention to community interests and take up poli- cy issues such as this that are ripe for discussion. Councilmember Roe, from his recollection of Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee discussions, opined that it was the majority consensus to let the land use designation continue as Industrial since it was located adjacent to other industrial uses in the community; but that it could be considered as a buffer for adjacent residential uses and/or business park. Councilmember Roe, while not offering an opinion on the appropriate use at this point without a specific proposal for the site, opined that the City was not currently in a po- sition to acquire the property for ball fields, and if such an opportunity should come to fruition, the land use designation could be amended to Parks/Open Space at that time rather than changing the designation twice. Councilmemb- er Roe opined that it may be more appropriate to leave the designation as it currently was, given the variety of types of potential industrial uses and being mindful of impacts to the neighborhoods to the south and east. Council- member Roe noted that the other property scheduled for public hearing (Old Highway 8 triangle parcel) had been a specific request of residents in the neighborhood; and questioned the need for a public hearing on this specific parcel at this time without checking with the current owner, and recognizing the narrative of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Pust questioned what was known of any soil contamination on the site from past or current uses and how the railroad line across the prop- erty would impact uses other than industrial, with staff responding that the rail line was used for product delivery and shipping by properties north of the hig- hlighted triangle indicated on the displayed map. Councilmember Pust questioned the environmental quality of land for residen- tial uses and safety impacts for such a use related to railroad use. Councilmember Ihlan concurred that additional information on the railroad situation was needed, noting that there were other residential areas (James neighborhood) bordering the line. Councilmember Johnson questioned Councilmember Ihlan's intent, whether it was to create a new policy for all anomaly areas or just this specific parcel.