Laserfiche WebLink
Residential <br />(units) <br />City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 2, 2015 <br />Page 4 of 27 <br />Office (SF) Retail (SF) Park (SF) <br />Existing <br />`° <br />405 <br />t, x � <br />";w194,71C <br />3`6626 <br />s <br />f p <br />Entitled - recent <br />732 <br />236,739 <br />408,126 <br />0 <br />Currently Allowed <br />P <br />1,006 ? <br />1 258'870 <br />532,236 <br />Workshop Alternative <br />Market Alternative <br />Survey Alternative <br />805 <br />463,678 <br />332,220 <br />17.4 ac <br />1,69.24 <br />949;375,6 „ <br />"4961'�75a <br />13ac! <br />992 <br />1,086,484 <br />583,263 <br />10.4 ac <br />Planning and Building Safety Director Russ noted based on the public and City Council <br />comments to date, staff recommends dropping the Market Alternative from further <br />consideration. Staff also recommends proceeding to conduct detailed evaluations of the <br />Workshop and Survey scenarios and comparing them to the Entitled and Currently <br />Allowed development scenarios on these factors:. <br />1. Character and design of the development; <br />2. Changes to property rights; <br />3. Fiscal impacts; <br />4. Traffic impacts; <br />5. Public costs; <br />6. School impacts; and <br />7. Evaluated against the measures of success <br />Further, staff recommended City Council make any desired changes to these alternative <br />corridor land use scenarios and the Main Street and Centennial intersection alignments <br />being considered for testing, then confirm the final scenarios for evaluation. The results <br />will be vetted with the community to assist in developing a preferred hybrid land use <br />scenario and infrastructure plan with more nuances which better reflect community <br />desires and expectations during the "Discussion" phase of the project. <br />COUNCIL QUESTIONS <br />Council member Loo asked for clarification on the "entitled” portion and were there any <br />entitled items which may have been approved long ago. Planning and Building Safety <br />Director Russ noted they are PUD's except for the Alkonis property. PUDs are further <br />along in detailing what can be built. He noted there were not any entitled items from <br />years ago that staff knew of. <br />Mayor Muckle commented there are a few properties with potential for development. <br />Council member Loo stated that is exactly what she was asking. Could property owners <br />come forward and say they wanted to do certain things on their property and felt entitled <br />to do so given the current zoning. Planning and Building Safety Director Russ stated <br />