Open Space Advisory Board Minutes 2021 02 10 REVISED

Home Browse Search

the meeting packet. He thinks OSAB's one -week policy is unreasonable, since the board would be making a decision based on things not on the record or in the meeting packet. F. Jessamine brought the meeting back to the board members. She reminded the board to review the staff recommendation on page 38 on the packet. G. Peter pointed out that the current proposal represents essentially no changes from the previous dedication proposal that the board had already approved. He added that the minimum dedication requirement has been met. Furthermore, the developer is intending to stay within the Comprehensive Plan so they have a development use right. He said the board only has authority to review and comment, not make a final decision. OSAB has limited jurisdiction and the heavy lifting will have to be done by the Planning Commission. OSAB can only comment on what pertains to the open space dedication, and many of the comments from the public tonight cannot actually be addressed by OSAB. He added that he supports the staff recommendation. But he would like to encourage clustering across the whole area to minimize the footprint of the development as much as possible and maximize open/undeveloped areas. He also would like to explore additional City purchase of land at the site. H. Anneliese asked her fellow board members what their level of engagement was prior to the first vote. Peter answered that the board was given a site tour. He pointed out that the board saw rubble and old foundations in a lot of the initially proposed open space dedication, and this was part of the reason the board suggested the northern part of the land for the dedication rather than land that was previously developed. I. Helen added that the board had attended multiple public meetings and several site visits in the lead up to the initial 2019 OSAB vote. J. Charles added that upon the site visit, he observed that much of the land is quite ripped up and full of rubble and former foundations of the StorageTek buildings. The nicest areas are the areas that are currently being suggested for dedication. The old foundations are going to take a while to disappear. K. Laura said that the board had been given a quite narrow purview for this proposal and furthermore been advised by the City attorney during the process that they should attend no further public meetings or hold site visits outside of the ones provided by the developer for the board. The board was even advised not to read newspaper coverage on the topic. The board has previously included the former Conoco/Phillips land in the OSAB land acquisition list, but City Council has told the board that the land was too expensive for acquisition and the City was counting on this land to generate revenue. Finally, she commented that she was dismayed by all the parking lots shown on the current proposal plan. Her observation of the current CTC development is that there are way too many, mostly -empty parking lots being built at the CTC and she would like to know whether the lots are really needed. Several board members agreed. L. Jessamine asked if there was room for a motion that included the board's support of clustering the buildings more tightly. Rob said yes. M. Anneliese asked for affirmation that the board would get a chance to weigh in on clustering later in the process. Rob said that to be clear OSAB can only weigh in on open space -adjacent land. N. Nathan asked whether city requirements for parking lot spaces is determined by building square footage. Rob said the current city code sets minimum parking requirements, not maximum O. Jessamine asked about wildlife preservation in the code section 16.16.10 and how the developers would plan to address the clear concerns of the public. P. Peter moved that the board approve the staff recommendation regarding the proposal, with the conditions that the applicant and staff make an appropriate effort to preserve natural features, historical and archaeological sites, and vegetation of the area, including trees, to the greatest extent possible. Furthermore that the board encourages building clustering to the extent possible to minimize the development footprint on the land. Finally, the board would like to have the opportunity to review all clustering, not just the open space adjacent land. Q. Thomas seconded. R. The motion passed unanimously. XI. Addendum: Rationale behind Motion Supporting Redtail Ridge Application for GDP Amendment (by board member Peter Gowen).