CC_Minutes_2011_0418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 18, 2011 Page 24 minatory, with the market able to set incentives; and ideas for affordable housing incentives. Councilmember McGehee volunteered to work with Mr. Trudgeon as a task force to provide recommendations to the full body at a future time. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would survey other communities on their best practices as part of that study. At this time, the City Council majority expressed their interest in hearing the enti- rety of Mr. Trudgeon's presentation, and then returning with their individual priorities for further discussion at a future meeting, following their review and consideration. Community-based Planning through Charrette Process Discussion related to this item included interest in processes similar to that used for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan community process; involvement of the community before developments are approved; differences in privately-owned versus publically-owned properties and how involved the community can be in dictating a final use beyond typical zoning and other regulatory reviews, and community involvement as applicable; rationale in eliminating the burdensome use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) processes for numerous land uses lead- ing revisions in the zoning code; current Master Plan processes for major devel- opments; and how to make projects more efficient for the City and developers, while achieving the desired outcome for all involved. Councilmember Pust cautioned that the City should not set up the community in any process that could cause them to perceive they had more say in the final out- come than they actually did; opining that this would only cause additional frustra- tion. Mayor Roe concurred, noting that by engaging them in the process, when they ac- tually saw no results, was equally frustrating. Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that that the Park Master Plan process involved properties under City ownership versus private ownership, eliminating many planning challenges. Further discussion included examples of future development or redevelopment, such as the Har Mar Site zoned as a Community Business District as a model for a large piece of property where a process such as the Charrette Process may work well, when owned by a single private property owner; the desire to include the community in major planning projects while recognizing the community's limited role in that development; balancing the interests and benefits of the community with those of the private developer as partners; market support of the communi-