My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 04 21
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2015 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 04 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:23:42 PM
Creation date
5/1/2015 10:06:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
7A5
Record Series Code
45.010
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2015 04 21
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
316
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 7, 2015 <br />Page 14 of 26 <br />information regarding the McCaslin Small Area Plan. She felt the survey would be <br />wasteful, but if the survey goes out she felt the Council should define mixed use. <br />Council member Loo addressed question seven and was not sure the average person <br />would have an understanding of the planning and governmental terms. She requested <br />question seven be revised to make it more understandable. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton suggested John Leary rewrite all the survey questions and <br />present them to City Council. He explained Mr. Leary described a lot of concepts, <br />which may not be appropriately conveyed to staff. <br />Mayor Muckle did not feel the survey was quite ready. He was not sure what the <br />Council would be learning from the questions asked about the McCaslin area. He <br />stressed the Council wanted citywide input from the citizens. <br />Planning and Building Safety Director Russ stated staff understood the direction of the <br />survey was to be a guiding influence for the City Council decisions. It was also clear <br />from Council direction to provide a broad brush outreach. He explained the information <br />being provided to the Planning Commission is three distinctly different alternatives. <br />There is a combination of uses but the yield of residential units is significantly different <br />based on what land is determined to be open space and infrastructure. The results from <br />the South Boulder Road Small Area Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission <br />in April and by the City Council in May. There are a full range of public involvement <br />options including round table discussions and key stakeholder interviews as well as the <br />survey, which will provide information on what uses and the characteristics of <br />development are desired by the residents. <br />Council member Lipton felt it is important to get as much public input as possible and <br />was interested in doing a basic and simple survey. Mayor Muckle agreed. <br />Council member Loo asked if there were any time crunch reasons for doing the survey <br />sooner rather than later. Planning and Building Safety Director Russ explained they are <br />trying to get the most out of the consultants' travel time and delaying the McCaslin <br />survey will delay the South Boulder Road project (the final three scenarios). He <br />stressed the survey, the workshops and stakeholder interviews will provide Council the <br />information they need to make a decision. <br />Council member Lipton agreed it is important to bring the South Boulder Road Small <br />Area Plan to a conclusion. He voiced his concern the consultant's travel time may be <br />driving the McCaslin survey. He would support slowing down the process and adding to <br />the consultant's travel budget because he wanted to make sure the project is done <br />correctly. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton addressed the timing of the survey, and the consultant's travel <br />time and voiced his support for eliminating question seven. <br />42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.