Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 12 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 29, 2012 Page 9 of 11 Pritchard stated keeping status quo is not acceptable, therefore Option #1 and #2 are not viable. He stated he agrees with Lipton that there are other existing redevelopment areas that create future opportunities – there should not be any more Greenfield opportunities created. He stated he supports Option #3. Brauneis stated it is inevitable there is going to be redevelopment in the McCaslin area, therefore maybe Option #4 is the right option. He stated he appreciates the idea this Option could take away the City’s focus on other areas that need attention, but the thought of leaving it lay fallow for a while is very pastoral. Moline stated the housing concept on Option #4 enhances the access to Davidson Mesa that does not currently exist – he does not want it to get lost if this option is not considered. He added staff provided a staggering amount of information and he very much appreciated it. He also believes there has been a very good public outcome. O’Connell asked if there is an option to leave the residential component south of Century but omit the residential component on the north side. Russell stated it felt like we are debating a PUD at this point. He asked staff about the next steps. Russ stated this is only to move forward a framework, and then the draft Comp Plan would come forward. Before a residential development could happen it would still need to be rezoned and have a PUD approved. Russell stated Option #4 is the McCaslin Corridor plan. He added if we don’t do this then we become more reactive to what he developers want – this is proactive. He stated if we wait another 4 more years then this area will become worse than it is now. He added this is one of the most important areas of the City that needs focus. Lipton stated the additional residential won’t make or break the McCaslin area, it is the other projects, such as Phillips66 property and Sam’s Club redevelopment. Tengler stated the development options are not an either or. He stated the residential component will not prohibit any additional development to happen on the same site. Lipton stated we should be focused more on what is failing today and not a Greenfield property that isn’t failing. Russ stated the current Comp Plan does not permit any additional residential in this corridor. He added there have been 6 amendments to the Centennial Valley GDP, and there is no more retail development permitted – only office. Russell stated there is no tragedy if Option #3 is forwarded instead of Option #4. He added there is real value in the corridor being bounded by a BRT and additional residential deeper in the corridor. He does not believe this area would become a North End Subdivision type of development. Brauneis stated he believes this is the right time to define what this area should be instead of pushing it off another 4 years. Russell stated there isn’t anything inevitable that this area will be residential.