[a. Resolution CC-04-18-22-01]
[00:00:07]
AUGUST 8, 2022 MEETING OF THE LAND USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE MEETING. THIS IS OUR THIRD MEETING TO DISCUSS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS WILL BE A WORK SESSION THE STAFF HAS MADE PRESENTATIONS, COUNSEL ASKED QUESTIONS DURING OUR REVIEW DURING THE LAST MEETING SO WHAT I PLAN TO DO IS GO THROUGH SECTION BY SECTION STARTING WITH SECTION 1 AND IF THERE ARE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT EITHER OF THE COMMITTEE OR COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE LET ME KNOW. OF COURSE, COMMITTEE WOULD BE THE ONLY MEMBERS WHO CAN ACTUALLY MAKE MOTIONS. IF THERE IS ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT ON THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT AND ANOTHER COMMITTEE MEMBER CAN DO SO. SO, WE WILL START OUT WITH SECTION 1 AND I KNOW ADRIAN YOU ALSO HAVE SOME CHANGES TO MAKE AS WELL. I BELIEVE IN SECTION 1 YOU DO
HAVE A CHANGE? >> CORRECT. IT IS SOMETHING WE RECEIVED, A REQUEST FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OR OBJECT OF 1.5.6. CURRENTLY, IT IS REGARDING ELECTRICAL UTILITY LINES. THEIR PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE ELECTRICAL AND ADD COMMUNICATION UTILITY LINES TO BE BURIED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND ADD TO IMPROVE SAFETY, ESPECIALLY IN URBANIZING AREAS. CARE MUST BE GIVEN TO THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND AND ABOVEGROUND EQUIPMENT STRIKING. SWAP THAT FOR A TRANSFORMER BOX SO PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT PRECLUDED BY CONFLICTS WITH THESE, THE ADDITION OF THESE POWER FACILITIES. SO, -
>> CHAIR: YOU LOST ME AFTER ENCOURAGE ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION?
>> SPEAKER: AND COMMUNICATION LINES. >> CHAIR: ARE WE KEEPING THE
REST THE SAME? >> SPEAKER: AFTER THE COMMUNITY IN THE SECOND LINE WE WOULD ADD TO IMPROVE SAFETY. AND THEN, IN THE FOURTH LINE, INSTEAD OF TRANSFORMER BOXES, SUBSTITUTE
AND ABOVEGROUND EQUIPMENT. >> CHAIR: INSTEAD OF TRANSFORM?
>> SPEAKER: INSTEAD OF TRANSFORMER BOXES IT WOULD READ UNDERGROUND AND ABOVEGROUND EQUIPMENT. AND THEN ADD ON THE LAST LINE CONFLICTS WITH THESE POWER FACILITIES.
>> CHAIR: NOT PRECLUDED BY CONFLICTS WITH THESE POWER FACILITIES?
>> SPEAKER: YES. >> CHAIR: ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: DO YOU HAVE A REDLINE THAT WE CAN SEE THE LANGUAGE WE HAD AND THEN GET THE VISUAL? I TRIED TO BE AUDITORY BUT IT IS OLD AGE OR JET ENGINES, I DON'T KNOW.
>> SPEAKER: I MARKED THIS AND I CAN ZOOM IN ON THIS A LITTLE A B. SO, THE FIRST EDIT IS HERE
FOR AND COMMUNICATION. SECOND EDIT IS HERE. >> CHAIR: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER
CHANGES WITH THIS SECTION? >> SPEAKER: NO, I DO NOT. >> CHAIR: I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE THESE CHANGES? CAN ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAKE A
MOTION? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: MADAM CHAIR, MAKE MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND OBJECTIVE 1.5.62 ENCOURAGE ELECTRICAL UTILITY LINES TO BE BURIED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY TO IMPROVE SAFETY ESPECIALLY IN URBANIZED AREAS. CARE MUST BE GIVEN TO LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND EQUIPMENT SO PEDESTRIAN STRUCTURED DOES NOT PRECLUDE BY CONFLICTS WITH POWER FACILITIES. > COUNCIL MEMBER: I WILL SECOND. THAT WAS GOOD! [LAUGHTER]
>> SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. COMMITTEE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AGAINST SAME SIGN. ALL RIGHT,
[00:05:04]
THE MOTION CARRIES AND ADRIAN YOU WILL SUPPLY THE REDLINE COPY TO US AFTER?>> SPEAKER: YES I WILL. >> CHAIR: YOU HAVE ANOTHER CHANGES FOR SECTION 1? OR THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE JUST JOINING US WE ARE GOING SECTION BY SECTIO. THIS IS A WORK SESSION SO WE WILL DISCUSS ANY AMENDMENTS AT THE FIRST COMMITTEE MAY HAVE AND THEN ANY CONVERSATION OR COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL. FIRST COMMITTEE ANY OTHER AMENDMENT? NONE? ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO SECTION NUMBER 2. ADRIAN DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN SECTION 2?
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS? >> SPEAKER: I DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING THIS EVENING HOWEVER I CAN HELP IF DISCUSSION OCCURS THAT WE CAN REVISE SOMETHING. COUNSEL? SECTION NUMBER 2.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: SO THE TYPICAL CORRIDOR SECTION IS THAT?
>> SPEAKER: THAT IS IN SECTION NUMBER 2. CAN WE GO BACK TO SECTION NUMBER 1? I WAS LOOKING AT THAT I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU CAN GO TO 1.3 SECTION 1.3? YOU KNOW, THERE'S YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION BEFORE ABOUT PROTECTING THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AND OTHER MEETINGS BEFORE WHERE YOU HAVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 10, 15, 2030 YEARS AND THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTS OCCURRING RIGHT NEXT TO IT. FOR INSTANCE, THE CLAY TERRACE, THE PUD THAT WAS APPROVED NOT THAT LONG AGO.
THE HOWEVER STEAK AND 99TH IS RUNNING THROUGH THE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THERE'S OTHER AREAS SPECIFICALLY INVOLVING GEOTECH AND THE CARE BUILDING AND IF YOU HAVE GONE AND DRIVEN BY THEIR AT NIGHT IT'S A BIG FIVE-STORY BUILDING LIT UP THAT CAUSES ISSUES FOR SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THEIR. WE HAVE HAD LOTS OF MEETINGS ABOUT THE RITZ CHARLES SIGN WITH SPRING LAKE ESTATES AND JACKSON GRANT THE BIG RITZ CHARLES LETTERS IF YOU DRIVE BY AT NIGHT THEY ARE JUST BEAMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MIKE AND JEREMY CASHMAN HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S ANY SOLUTIONS ARE NOT BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND A SOLUTION SO IT IS WHAT IT IS AT NIGHT. WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRANSITION PERIOD NEXT TO NEIGHBORHOODS IF WE COULD PUT SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE TO DEAL WITH LIGHTING, NOISE TO THE FIVE-STORY BUILDINGS GOING UP KIND OF EMPHASIZING THAT WE DO IN FACT CARE ABOUT THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WHAT I WOULD OPPOSE HIS LANGUAGE WITHIN SECTION 3 ANOTHER OBJECTIVE THAT STATES SOMETHING TO THE FACT THAT PROTECTS SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ADJACENT WITH THE BUILDINGS, BUILDING MATERIALS LIGHTING AND NOISE AND COMPATIBLE IMPACTS. AGAIN, THERE'S A NUMBER OF, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT SPECIFIC AREA, 280 APARTMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN IMPROVED SILLY APPROVED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MARKET DISTRICT. YOU HAVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS RIGHT AROUND THERE AND SUDDENLY THERE'S GOING TO BE FIVE-STORY APARTMENTS AND THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. AND SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN EMPHASIZING THAT WERE GOING TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT NOISE AND AT THE LIGHT, AT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS IN PLACES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORHOOD SO YES, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE AND ADDING IT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> CHAIR: WHERE WOULD YOU PROPOSE THIS AMENDMENT BE MADE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: ANOTHER OBJECTIVE? WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE WHERE IT IS WITHIN THE
[00:10:01]
OBJECTIVE IN 1.31 1.32 OR EITHER AN OBJECTIVE ON LET'S GO BACK TO OBJECTIVE 1.37, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I AM FLEXIBLE TO WHERE IT GOES I WOULD JUST LIKE SOMETHING IN THEIR EMPHASIZING THAT WE DO IN FACT WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE EXISTING BECAUSE WE HAVE A TREND WHERE YOU KNOW, FIVE-STORY BUILDINGS THE NOISE, THE LIGHT, BRUCE CHARLES IS AN EXAMPLE AGAIN IF YOU DRIVE BY ILLINOIS AT NIGHT ON THE KR BUILDING AND ZO TECH THOSE ARE BUILDINGS THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM HALF MILE AWAY THAT YOU CAN SEEBEFORE. >> CHAIR: ARE YOU PROPOSING A LANGUAGE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES. I CAN MAKE A MOTION. I MOTION THAT WE ADD OBJECTIVE 1.3.7 PROTECT SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS FROM SIMILAR ADJACENT USES WITH RESPECT TO SCALE BUILDINGS BUILDING MATERIAL, LIGHTING, NOISE AND OTHER INCOMPATIBLE IMPACT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIR: ANY DISCUSSION? BY COMMITTEE OR COUNCILMEMBERS? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN. OKAY. 3-1 THE MOTION CARRIES. SO,
WILL YOU SAVE US ALL THE LANGUAGE? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES I CAN
SEND YOU THE LANGUAGE. >> CHAIR: ADRIAN, I WONDER, WHAT IS THE CITY'S CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF LIGHT ON EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS?
>> SPEAKER: THE YOU DO IN VARIOUS SECTIONS HAS LIGHTING STANDARDS IN AND I BELIEVE IT CHANGES WHETHER IT IS BELONGING TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LINE VERSUS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
LINE. I DON'T RECALL AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> CHAIR: I DIDN'T EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THIS IN DETAIL IS THAT SOME THING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE YOU DO IN
THE FUTURE IF ARE GOING TO MAKE CHANGES? >> SPEAKER: THAT SENTENCE SEEM TO BE FAIRLY GENERAL. IF IT WERE DETERMINED THAT THE STANDARDS BY WHICH LIGHTING OR ONE OF THESE OTHER CHARACTERISTICS ARE ENOUGH THEN THE YOU DO WOULD NEED TO BE
CHANGED. >> CHAIR: OKAY. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: MADAM CHAIR? AGAIN, I THINK WHAT TONY WAS MENTIONING ISN'T SO MUCH THE OVERHEAD LIGHT, FLOODLIGHTS WHICH THEY BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB TO PREVENT LIGHT BLOOM IF THEY DON'T GO UP THERE IS A MEASUREMENT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T GO TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE ISSUE THAT YOU SEE NEXT TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OR YOU HAVE LARGE BUILDINGS WITH LIGHTS THAT ARE LIT UP ALL NIGHT LONG AND SO IS NOT REALLY MEASURED AS A LIGHT BLOOM FROM A FIXTURE, BUT LOOKING AT A BUILDING THAT IS ALL LIT UP THAT IS FOUR OR FIVE STORIES AND I THINK THAT THE ISSUE AND WHERE THAT WOULD BE BEST ADDRESSED I'M NOT SURE. I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT FROM
MEASURING PROPERTY. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR WHY ARE THOSE LIGHTS ON IN THE BUILDING ALL NIGHT? I AGREE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ANSWER? HAVE WE EVER ASKED THAT QUESTION? WHY ARE THE LIGHTS ON IN THE KR BUILDING AND ZO TECH AT NIGHT WHEN NOBODY IS IN THERE? IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO TURN THE
LIGHTS OFF ANYWAY. IT COSTS MONEY. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: MADAM CHAIR AND GOING TO GUESS THAT PART OF IT IS CLEANING BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE ALL NIGHT IT SHOULD ROTATE AROUND THE BUILDING BUT I THINK IT IS MORE PROBABLY DAMAGE AND NOT THINKING ABOUT THE COST OR
MAYBE THE EFFECT OUTSIDE. >> CHAIR: MAY BE A PROGRAM TO TALK WITH COMPANIES, THAT MIGHT BE IN ORDER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 1?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES. >> CHAIR: COUNCILOR TONY GREEN?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: 1.34 IF WE CAN PLUG THAT IN. ALL RIGHT. THAT FIRST SENTENCE SUPPORT OPPORTUNITIES AND ALLOW MORE RESIDENCES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A SHORT WALK OR BIKE RIDE ANY
[00:15:02]
DAILY NEEDS. WITH THAT LANGUAGE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE CITY HOWEVER YOU DEFINE IT THAT LANGUAGE LOTS OF LANGUAGE SUGGESTING THAT EVEN THOUGH THE 20 MINUTE AND THIS IS TRENDING ON A COUPLE OTHER OBJECTIVES AND MAKES USE AND PROPERTY AND I'LL GIVE IT SPECIFIC AREAS AND LOTS OF SPECIFIC PLACES ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE. THERE'S CONCERN IN THE 20 MINUTE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THERE STILL A MOVE TOWARDS, THERE COULD STILL BE A MOVE ON PUTTING MIXED-USE PROPERTY THROUGH PUD AND OTHER METHODS. ADJACENT, GOING BACK TO ADJACENT TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO WHERE IT SAYS SUPPORT OPPORTUNITIES AND ALLOW MORE RESIDENTS AND THEN ADD IN IN DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN AND THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND IT AREAS THAT ARE NOT ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTHWEST. IT TAKES AWAY AND AGAIN IS ONLY THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN BUT IT TAKES AWAY THE CONCERN THAT IT WILL BE MIXED-USE IN THOSE AREAS LIKE A COFFEE SHOP OR WINDOW COMMERCIAL.>> COUNCIL MEMBER: THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION ON THIS AND I THINK WE HAD THIS DEBATE PREVIOUSLY WITH THE PUD IN YOUR DISTRICT WHERE THERE WAS COMMERCIAL IN THERE AND I THANK YOU VOTED NO ON THAT. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE VOTE WAS FROM
THE COUNCIL. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I THINK IT WAS 5-3 AND THAT WAS JACKSON
GRANT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES, 5-3. WHILE I SEE YOUR POSITION WE SEE PEOPLE SAY WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING THE CALL PLAN? IF WE PUT THINGS IN THE COMP PLAN THAT ARE CONTRARY TO WHAT WE VOTED ON AS A COUNSEL AND I STAND BEHIND THAT VOTE AND VOTE FOR PROJECT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE FUTURE WE WILL HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE COMP PLAN THAT IS NOT REFLECT GIVE OF HOW THE COUNCIL VOTES WOULD BE GOING FORWARD. WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THIS DOCUMENT WILL LIVE ON BEYOND ANY OF US, TOO. TO SAY THAT WE CAN'T HAVE DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN AREA OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME AGREEMENT THAT IT COULD BE. I THINK THAT IS TRYING TO SET AN AGENDA THAT MAY BE A DIFFERENT MAYOR OR COUNCILOR WOULD AGREE WITH AND I DON'T EVEN THINK THE CURRENT MAYOR OR COUNCILOR AGREES WITH. HOPEFULLY THAT PUD IS AN EXISTING 30 YEAR NOW TO KEEP PROGRESS AND RATHER THAN KEEPING 14 OR 15 YEARS AND SAY MAYBE IT'S TIME TO DO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HOPEFULLY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS AN EXISTING WHEN WERE ALL GONE HERE. SECOND, PART OF THE ISSUE IF YOU CAN CORRECT ME WHEN WE DO THE PUD WE ARE BLOWING OFF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S A WAY TO GET AROUND CERTAIN ITEMS. AREN'T MOST OF THE PUD INCONSISTENT OR MANY OF THE PUD CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT REPORTS THAT COME TO THE COUNCIL WITH EVERY PUD THERE'S ALWAYS AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND. NOT EVERYBODY AGREES AND THIS OCCURS AND IT IS GENERALLY NEGATIVE. THOSE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO MAKE IT THROUGH THE COUNCIL IF THERE ISN'T SOME KIND OF F NEXUS AND THE POLICIES AND MASTER PLAN
PROJECT PROPOSALS. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: OKAY. SO, THE BEAUTY WILL BE CONSISTENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: WHAT HE MEAN BY CONSISTENT? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: WHAT DOES IS MEAN? I MEAN CONSISTENT. THUS PART OF THE ISSUE THE PUBLIC DOES NOT KNOW. WHEN IS THE LAST TIME THIS CONFERENCE A PLAN WAS CHANGED? 2008, 2007? SO THE DECISIONS ON THE BEAUTY NOW ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPETENCY PLAN OF 2007? WE ARE TALKING CONSISTENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: ANNUNEN NUMBER OF POLICIES WERE COMPLETED IN 2015 AND IS CONSTANTLY DEBATED IN COUNSEL. THERE SUCH A VARIETY OF POLICIES. DOES ANY PROJECT
[00:20:05]
EVER MAKE ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE COMPETENCY PLAN? IF THAT WAS THE CASE THAN IF THEY DID NOT THEY WOULDN'T BE EVEN BEFORE YOU. IF THERE'S NOT A NEXUS. IF IT'S NOT A REASONABLE AND IT HITS A LOT OF THE POLICIES, AGAIN, WE WILL GIVE YOU THAT ANALYSIS AND ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO YOU TO DETERMINE IF IT IS THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN OR IF IT ISWORTHY OF APPROVAL. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: WE HAVE 5-3 VOTES WE HAVE DISAGREEMENT AND THOSE VOTE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSISTENT WITH A AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE
OF PLAN? >> SPEAKER: YES. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: ALL RIGHT.
>> CHAIR: PRESIDENT KEVIN RIDER? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: SAYING IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS MISLEADING AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN MEANS THE VIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE AREN'T SPECIFIC, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS NOT OUR UBL. WE DO NOT MAKE OUR PUD AND ORDINANCES WORD FOR WORD A COMPETENCY PLAN. THE CONFERENCE PLAN IS A GUIDE AND TO SAY THAT THE PUD IS A WAY TO SKIRT ZONING IS ALSO MISREPRESENTING WHAT THEY ARE. THE PUD, IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.
CAN THE DEVELOPER GET THINGS THEY CANNOT GET UNDER REGULAR ZONING, YES. THE CITY GETS A LOT OUT OF THE PUD-NO, I AM NOT DONE. THE CITY GETS A LOT OUT OF THE BEAUTY THAT WE WOULD NOT GET UNDER NORMAL ZONING. WE GET ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, RODDICK SET WE WANT USED ON THE HOMES. WE GET IN URBAN AREAS WE GET TREES, GREEN SPACE, WE GET ALL KINDS. WE CAN ASK FOR ANYTHING IN THE PUD AND WE DO. WE GET MORE OUT OF THE PUD THEN THE DEVELOPER GETS IN YOUR WORD SKIRTING ZONING. THERE IS NEIGHBORHOODS AND I HAVE ALWAYS SAID WE NEED TO UP OUR ZONING.
WITHOUT A PUD BUILDERS CAN BUILD THINGS IN NEIGHBORHOODS ON LAND THAT WE DON'T WANT.
SO, THE PUD HAS STOPPED THAT FROM HAPPENING IN MY 15 YEARS. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YEAH, THANK
YOU. >> SPEAKER: I'M NOT SAYING PUD'S ARE BAD THING PUD'S DO ALL THE THINGS YOU JUST SAID THAT THE REASON WHY THEY DO PUD'S IS BECAUSE I CAN'T DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THE ZONING TO SAY THEY ARE NOT SKIRTING, THEY ARE DEFINITELY SKIRTING ZONING BECAUSE ARE MAKING A CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT TO GO THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ZONING. I COMPLETELY DO AGREE, DISAGREE, THE SKIRTING IS, IT IS AN OPTION IT IS AN ALTERNATIVE AND THERE IS VALUE TO IT BUT TO SAY THAT A DEVELOPER DOESN'T LOOK AT THAT AND SAY WERE NOT GOING THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS BECAUSE I WANT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PRODUCT SO I'M GOING TO DO A PUD AND A GOOD EXAMPLE A VERY RELEVANT EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW IS THE FLOOR IN THE PUD WE HAD A DISCUSSION AND I ASKED A SPECIFIC QUESTION FROM MIKE AND ALEXIA, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DISAPPROVE THE PUD? HOW WILL W WILL THE WHATEVER THE DEVELOPER PUTS IN GO THROUGH THE NORMAL ZONING PROCESS, THE LESS DENSE OR MORE DENSE AND THEY SAID PROBABLY MORE DENSE. THEN I ASKED WHAT THE TREE PRESERVATION WOULD BE WITH THE PUD IT 25 PERCENT AND THEY CAME BACK IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND SAID IF IT HAD TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL ZONING PROCESS IT IS 72, 73 TREE COUNT, PERCENT OF THE TREES WOULD BE RESERVED AND THAT IS A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE AND THAT WAS IN THE CITY COUNCIL RIGHT BEFORE WE TOOK THE BOAT. THE CITY COUNCIL SAID 5-3 SAID 23 PERCENT OF TREE PRESERVATION IS ENOUGH WHEN IN FACT THE PUD WAS DISAPPROVED AND WENT TO THE ZONING PROCESS 72 TO 73 PERCENT OF THE TREES WOULD BE PRESERVED. MIKE IS SHAKING HIS
HEAD DID YOU IN FACT SAY THAT. YOU AND ALEXIA SAID - >> SPEAKER: I DON'T RECALL WHAT
THE SPECIFIC NUMBER WAS. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: WHAT IS CONSISTENT? LET'S DO A LITTLE
BIT BETTER BECAUSE I WILL PULL THE VIDEO. >> SPEAKER: I'M TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I THINK IT'S 50 PERCENT FOR THE OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE. YOU HAVE
LEVELS OF TREE PRESERVATION AND SO I THINK IT IS CLOSER TO 50. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: ALL RIGHT, I ASKED TWICE AND IT WAS 71 TO 72 PERCENT AND WE WERE ALL SHOCKED. ALL RIGHT. WHATEVER.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: MADAM CHAIR THE REASONS I MADE THE POINT ON THAT PARTICULAR PUD IS FORGET
[00:25:04]
THE BEAUTY AND FORGET ZONING THERE IS A PROPERTY OWNER AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT STOPS THAT PROPERTY OWNER FROM CLEARCUTTING THAT PROPERTY. CLEARCUTTING EVERY TREE AND IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF WE WOULD HAVE TURNED THAT DOWN. THEY HAD ALREADY LOGGED PART OF IT BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED. SO THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE SAYING, YOU HAVE TO WORK IN REALITY.YOU CAN'T JUST WORK IN THE IF THIS HAPPENED, WE ARE IN REALITY THAT IT WAS HAPPENING.
IF THAT GOT TURNED DOWN THERE WAS NOTHING STOPPING THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM CLEARCUTTING THAT PROPERTY. NOTHING WE COULD DO ABOUT IT NO PRESERVATION WHEN YOU OWN THE PROPERTY. AND AGAIN, HE SAID IT AGAIN, SKIRTING ZONING. WITHOUT PUD WE WOULDN'T GET THE PROJECTS WE GET. WE DON'T WANT WETLAND IS LEFT IN CARMEL TO DEVELOP UNDER THE LITTLE POCKETS OF ZONING. WE WOULD NOT GET HALF OF WHAT WE ARE GETTING IN OUR DEVELOPMENTS AND I'M GOING TO STICK WITH THAT. SKIRTING ZONING IS MISREPRESENTING WHAT IS GOING
ON. >> CHAIR: BEFORE I GO TO COUNCILOR TIM HANNON MIKE, YOU AND I HAD A DISCUSSION I WAS FIRST ON COUNSEL AND YOU BROUGHT UP MY NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN A PUD. IN THIS GAVE ME AN BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF AND JUST TALKING WITH OTHER COUNSELORS ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO WITH A PUD. MY NEIGHBORHOOD I THINK WAS DEVELOPED ABOUT 25 YEARS AGO. HOW FAR BACK DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND THE HISTORY OF THE PUD IN CARMEL? HOW FAR BACK DO WE GO, DO YOU KNOW? YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IT AND WE CAN COME BACK TO IT.
>> SPEAKER: I WOULD SAY LATE 90S IS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED AND PRIOR TO THAT I MEAN, THE RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE WAS THE WAY THAT SUBDIVISIONS WERE USUALLY -THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE ADJUSTMENTS OVER THE YEARS BUT ULTIMATELY THE CITY COUNCIL LANDED ON THE PUD THAT THE FAVORITE WAY TO DEVELOP OR APPROVE NEW SUBDIVISIONS BECAUSE OF THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WAS BUILT INTO THE OPEN SPCE ORDINANCES IT WAS CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE A RE-ZONE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL EVEN THOUGH THE COUNCIL HAD APPROVED THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPED THE COMMUNITY REALLY LEARNED HOW TO OPERATE WITHIN THOSE RULES AT THE TIME AND SO THE COUNCIL KIND OF TOOK AWAY A LOT OF THAT FLEXIBILITY AND BUILT THAT INTO THE PUD PRICES AND THIS WAS BACK IN THE RICH SHARP AREA WHEN THAT CHANGE OCCURRED AND I WOULD SAY LATE 90S THE VILLAGE WEST CLAY WAS THE FIRST. IF THAT GIVES YOU A REFERENCE POINT.
>> CHAIR: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER TIM HANNON? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: TO BE DIRECT, I SEE WERE GOING AT IT A LITTLE BIT IF THE DEVELOPER CAN BUILD WITHIN EXISTING ZONING IT WILL. RIGHT? THEY STILL HAVE A VARIETY OF REVIEWS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH FOR NG CODE INSPECTION, ETC. THE PUD AND THINK SKIRTING IS NOT THE BEST WORD. IF THEY CANNOT OR DO NOT WANT TO BUILD WITHIN THE EXISTING ZONING THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OR REQUEST A VARIANT. THEY HAVE TO DO A ONE OR THE OTHER AND WHAT WE SEE AT COUNSEL IS NOT THE VARIANCE WE SEE THE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN WITH THE BEAUTY. CERTAINLY TO THE PRESENT WRITER'S POINT, CARMEL ASKED FOR A LOT AND THE DEVELOPERS KNOW THAT A FRONT. THEY WANT FANCIER, NICER LOOKING BUILDINGS AND OF COURSE THAT DRIVES UP THE PRICE POINT BUT IN THE COMPENSATION FOR THAT OR THE CALCULATING INTO THAT IS MUCH HIGHER DENSITY. THEY'RE GOING TO GET THAT BIGGER HOME PER SQUARE FOOT OF LAND SO IT GIVES THEM A BIGGER PROFIT. AGAIN SKIRTING IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WORD BUT IF A DEVELOPER CAN BUILD WITHIN THEIR ZONE THEY WILL OR IF THEY CAN'T OR CHOOSE NOT TO THEY GO THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS AND WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH IT GETS SUBSTANTIAL REVIEW IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN COMES TO US AS WELL. I THINK IN TERMS OF THIS DOCUMENT TO ME WE CAME OUT OF THE FOG LAST MONTH WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS YOU DESCRIBE ZONING AS DEFENSE IS LIKE WHAT THE EXISTING STATUS QUO IS AND THIS IS SORT OF THE GAME PLAN FOR OFFENSE.
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE GOING FORWARD? IN SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS HERE REALLY SHOW
[00:30:05]
THAT THERE IS AS THOUGH SHOULD BE TENSION AMONG THOSE OF US ON COUNSEL AS WELL AS PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE AS TO WHAT IS THE UNION YANG? WHAT I BELIEVE WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT CONSTITUENTS WANT MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT TENSION BACK AND FORTH NOT THE COUNCIL THAT IS ALL BUILD WHATEVER OR DON'T BUILD ANYTHING. NOT TO SAY THAT THERE IS AN IMPORTANCE IN THE FINER DETAILS OF WHAT IS BUT ULTIMATELY WHAT WE KNOW AND I THINK CONSTITUENTS NEED TO KNOW IS THIS BODY ULTIMATELY INTERPRETS THE PUD REQUEST, YOU DO, THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL.BACK TO CERTAINLY TO TONY'S POINT, I AM NOT A VOTING MEMBER OF THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE THAT I WOULD JUST ASK TONY, IS THE LETTER OF THE LAW GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS HOW
THE POLICY IS IN A GOOD? >> CHAIR: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SUE FINKAM?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: I RESPECT WHAT COUNCILOR TONY GREEN IS TRYING TO DO WITH THE LANGUAGE CHANGE BUT WE HAVE OTHER AREAS MICHIGAN ROAD AREA, 96 CORRIDOR YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE SHORT WALK OR A BIKE RIDE AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IS WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN 1.35 ESTABLISHING THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. SO, I DON'T SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE PROPOSING I CAN'T VOTE ON IT EITHER. AND I ALSO THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT EVEN WITHIN THE SECTION RIGHT HERE WITH THE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES THERE ARE SOME BIG OBJECTIVES HERE ALREADY SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BEING CONSISTENT WE ARE ALREADY LOOKING AT THIS AND WE ARE ALREADY INCONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVE WE TALK ABOUT PRESERVING CHARACTER YET A BROADER REVIEW WITH AMENITIES. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT. THEY ARE JUST SKYLINES AND I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE DONE THE TEAM THAT DID THIS AND NOW THAT WE ARE REVIEWING IT HAS BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB OF KEEPING IT ABROAD AND KEEPING IT MICRO-SUBJECTIVE IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO.
>> CHAIR: GREEN ARE YOU PROPOSING? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: NUMBER I WILL MOVE ON. SECTION 1.6. THIS GOES BACK TO THE PRIOR POINT THAT I WAS MAKING DO YOU HAVE 1.6 UP THERE? THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOT PRINT TIMES BACK TO THE NOISE SPECIFICALLY THE LIGHTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PEACE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT I LIKE TO SEE AND IT GOES BACK TO THE CAR CARE BUILDING AND ZO TEXT BUILDING AND THE LIGHTS BEING ON. ADDING THE OBJECT OF SO IT WOULD BE WHEREVER YOU THINK. 1.67 OR SO ENCOURAGE THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF ENERGY THROUGH CONSERVATION OF ELECTRICITY AND NIGHTTIME LIGHTING OF NONRESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS AFTER NORMAL HOURS OF OPERATION. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE AN OBJECT OF
1.6.7. ARE YOU SUGGESTING? >> SPEAKER: 16 IS THE LAST. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: 1.6.17?
>> CHAIR: AGAIN, COULD YOU - WE HAVE 16 AND WE PUT AFTER? THE SAYS CONDUCT INVENTORIES ANALYSIS OF THE LIMITED EXPOSURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION DOES NOT GO AWAY?
>> CHAIR: THAT ECKSTIS 16. IT MIGHT'VE BEEN CHANGED. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: SOMETHING
WENT AWAY AND THAT COULD HAVE BECOME 16. >> CHAIR: COUNCILOR GREENWOOD
YOU READ THAT FOR EVERYONE? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: ENCOURAGE AND WE HAD A GOOD SUGGESTION BUT I WILL READ THE LANGUAGE AS I HAVE. ENCOURAGE THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF ENERGY
[00:35:01]
THROUGH CONSERVATION OF ELECTRICITY AND NIGHTTIME LIGHTING OF NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND AFTER HOURS OF NORMAL OPERATION. > CHAIR: COUNCILMEMBER DID YOU HAVE AAMENDMENT TO THAT? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I JUST ASKED IF WE COULD ADD IN THE DOWNTOWN
AREA AND I THANK YOU SAID THAT WAS OKAY. >> CHAIR: THAT WOULD BE THE
FULL AMENDMENT TO ADD THE OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I THINK THAT AREA HAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT FEEL BIT ADDING IN THE DOWNTOWN WOULD BE THAT.
>> CHAIR: SOME OF THESE NAMES HAVE CHANGED. ARE WE USING THE PROPER TITLE FOR DOWNTOWN?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: THAT IS A GOOD SUGGESTION. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE DOWNTOWN
WEST, DOWNTOWN EAST. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: IS IT BAKER?
>> SPEAKER: I THINK WE EITHER NEED TO CALL OUT THE SPECIFICS AND THEN ADD DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. IF WE SAY DOWNTOWN AREA IT COULD INCLUDE ALL OF THEM. BUT, IF YOU MEAN ALL OF
THEM. >> CHAIR: WE WOULD HAVE TO SPECIFY DOWNTOWN, DOWNTOWN WEST
AND DOWNTOWN EAST? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: MADAM CHAIR? WHY WOULD WE EXCLUDE BEING SENSITIVE TO THE USE OF ELECTRICITY IN ANY AREA SPECIFICALLY IF IT IS ADJACENT
TO RESIDENTIAL? WHY WOULD YOU EXCLUDE ANY SPECIFIC AREA? >> CHAIR BECAUSE WE ARE
ENCOURAGING. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I THINK IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FIRST OF ALL THIS LANGUAGE BEING ENERGY-EFFICIENT I GUESS WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT ANYWHERE. BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO SAY HEY, THE BUSINESSES NEED TO TURN OFF THEIR STREET SIGNS OR THEIR SIGNAGE AT NIGHT IF THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GETTING AT BEEN THAT DOESN'T FIT THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WE ALREADY BREAK THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT BUSINESSES WE ARE TALK ABOUT.
WE HAVE LIGHT UP SIGNAGE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I DON'T THINK IT WAS THE SIGNAGE YOU ARE EMPHASIZING. YOU SAID BUILDING IS LIT UP LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: LET'S GET MORE SPECIFIC ON THAT THEN. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: THIS IS ON OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND I GUESS WE DID IT LAST NIGHT YOU SHOULD THIS LONG THERE RATHER THAN THIS DOCUMENT? I AGREE WITH THE INTENT AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT FITS THEIR RATHER THAN HERE. MIKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK? DO YOU THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT TO HAVE IT INCORPORATING WITH THE
CLIMATE PLAN? >> SPEAKER: THE CLIMATE PLAN WAS FOR THE CITY OPERATION RATHER THAN WHAT IT WAS TO COMMUNICATE TO THE BUSINESS OR COMMUNITY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THEIR USE OF ELECTRICITY. I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COUNCILOR IS SAYING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOWNTOWN BUT GENERALLY, IF WE ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE CONSERVATION OF ELECTRICITY AND IF LIGHTING IS A PART OF THAT THAT SHOULD BE COMMUNITYWIDE. WE DO LOOK AT THAT IN THE YOU DO WITH PROJECTS LIGHTING IS ALWAYS SOMETHING WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO BUT WE HAVE NEVER REALLY GOTTEN INSIDE THE OWNERSHIP SIDE OF IT TO SAY MAYBE YOU SHOULD TURN THAT LIGHT OFF. THAT IS A LEAP THAT
WE HAVE NOT DONE. >> CHAIR: COUNCILOR MILES NELSON?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH I REALLY LIKE WHAT COUNCILOR GREEN IS PROPOSING IN THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE I THINK IT'S ALL HANDS ON DECK AND IT CAN'T JUST BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR IMMISCIBLE BUILDINGS. IT NEEDS TO BE OUR BUSINESS PARTNERS IN NEEDS TO BE THE RESIDENCE AS WELL. I SUPPORT WHAT COUNCILMEMBER GREENE IS SAYING.
>> CHAIR: COUNCILMEMBER MILES NELSON? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT BUT FORGETTING SPECIFICALLY INTO INDOOR LIGHTS TURNED ON AND OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT'S NOT A ZONING THING. THAT'S WHY I GOT CONFUSED WITH THE SIGNAGE WHICH IS MORE OF A ZONING CONCERN AND IF WERE TALKING ABOUT HEY, YOU HAVE ALL THE LIGHTS ON INSIDE YOUR BUILDING AT NIGHT THAT'S AN OPERATIONAL MATTER NOT A ZONING MATTER AND I CAN'T REMEMBER EVER THAT BEING SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED AND APPROVED THE
[00:40:05]
PROJECT LIKE HEY, ARE YOU TURNING ON THE LIGHT AT NIGHT RETURNING THEM OFF I DON'T THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED AND MAYBE I AGREE WITH THE COUNCILMEMBER SUE FINKAM. I DON'T THINK THIS IS ZONING I THINK IT BELONGS IN THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. IJUST DON'T THINK IT BELONGS IN HERE. >> CHAIR: MIKE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS IT IS SOME THAT SHOULD BE IN THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN OR SUE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: I DON'T THINK IT BELONGS IN IT. IT'S BROADER THAN THAT THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IS REALLY MORE CITY OPERATIONS AND US LOOKING AT OURSELVES AND LEADING BY EXAMPLE. THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF THE CALL PLAN IS A PERFECT BASE FOR IT.
>> CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. MORE DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN RIDER?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: THE WORD I HEARD IN THE AMENDMENT WAS IN URGED NOT REQUIRED. IT SOUNDS TO ME AS A CITY IF WE REALLY WANT THIS TO HAPPEN JUST HAVING THE CITY REACH OUT TO COMPANIES AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO IT MIGHT BE MORE EFFECT IF. I AM NOT COMMENTING ON ADDING OR NOT ADDING BUT IF WE TRULY WANT TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON IT WE SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE CITY CONTACT THE COMPANIES AND ENCOURAGE IT. WE ARE USING THE WORD ENCOURAGE LET'S MAKE A PHONE CALL AND ENCOURAGE IT IF WE REALLY WANT TO GET SOMETHING DONE.
>> CHAIR: COUNCILMEMBER GREENE? WHAT ACTION? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I WILL GO AHEAD AND PUT FORWARD A MOTION TO ADD THE LANGUAGE IN 1.61.7 ENCOURAGE RESPONSE WILL USE OF ENERGY THROUGH CONSERVATION OF ELECTRICITY AND NIGHTTIME LIGHTING NONRESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS AFTER NORMAL HOURS OF OPERATION. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: SECOND.
>> CHAIR: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AMONG TEAM MEMBERS? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN. THE MOTION CARRIES 4-0. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES. >> CHAIR: SECTION 1? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES. ALMOST EVERYTHING IS IN SECTION 1. BUT, THE OBJECTIVE 1.76 YOU CAN SEE UP THERE IT SAYS ENCOURAGE MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOODS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO WALK OR RIDE THEIR BICYCLES. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DAND TAKE OUT ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORHOODS AND MAKE IT EASIER TO WALK AND RIDE THEIR BICYCLES. ENCOURAGE MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPLIES THROUGH OUT CARMEL IT MIGHT BE
IN MIXED-USE BUT NOT THROUGHOUT ALL OF CARMEL. >> CHAIR: COMMITTEE? COMMITTEE
MEMBER ADAM AASEN? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I AM OKAY WITH THIS ONE BUT CAN WE USE USE NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN APPROPRIATE IS STILL VAGUE BUT SAYING WE LIKE THE CONCEPT AND
WHERE APPROPRIATE CAN BE LEFT OPEN TO A COUNCILOR TO DECIDE. >> CHAIR: ALL RIGHT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: EITHER WAY I'M OKAY I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.
>> CHAIR: COUNCILOR GREEN ARE YOU OKAY WITH USE IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN APPROPRIATE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES. >> CHAIR: IS THAT YOUR MOTION? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: ENCOURAGE MIXED-USE IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE APPROPRIATE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO WALK OR RIDE THE BUS.
>> CHAIR: DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIR: OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE FOR
SECTION NUMBER 1? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES BUT IT'S MORE OF A DISCUSSION POINT, 1.8 AND I DON'T HAVE LANGUAGE YET I WAS JUST EKING IT AROUND AND TO IMPROVE MOBILITY OPTIONS AND FUNCTIONALITY. IN MY GUT I DON'T KNOW I THINK IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE AM NOT SURE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SOMEHOW PUT SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT ADDRESSING THE SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAD THE DISCUSSION AND I WISH THAT COUNCILMEMBER JEFF WORRELL WAS HERE BECAUSE HE BROUGHT THIS UP A NUMBER OF TIME, THE BRIDGES. AND HOW SOME PEOPLE WERE AGAINST THE BRIDGES AND NOW THAT THE BRIDGES IS BUILT THEY LOVE THE BRIDGES BEING THERE. BUT FOR THEM TO WALK OR RIDE A BICYCLE TAKES THEIR LIVES INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. THEY HAVE TO DRIVE THEIR CARS EVEN IF THEY LIVE A HALF-MILE AWAY BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL SAFE. GOING THROUGH THE ROUNDABOUTS TRYING TO GET THERE UNLESS THEY ARE GOING AT
[00:45:03]
WHEN THERE IS NO TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS WHICH DURING NORMAL HOURS IS PROBLEMATIC. AND SO, OR TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE ADDRESSING THE SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND MICRO MOBILITYUSERS OR WHATEVER THE TERM MIGHT BE. >> CHAIR: ARE YOU PROPOSING
SOMETHING MORE THAN 1.83? WITH THE SAFE SYSTEMS APPROACH? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES, WE
ADDED THAT IN. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: NUMBER NO, I MISSED THAT. IT IS IN 1.83. I
AM GOOD WITH 1.83. >> CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE IN SECTION NUMBER 1? GIVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR SECTION NUMBER 1? SHE TO I DON'T THINK SO.
>> CHAIR: ALL RIGHT THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. ANY COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE? OR COUNSEL? COUNCILMEMBER HANAN? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: THE TYPICAL QUARTERS COMES UNDERNEATH THIS I APOLOGIZE. I WASN'T ABLE TO STAY FOR THE ENTIRE LAST MEETING AND I DIDN'T REVIEW IT. I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER GREENE BROUGHT UP NOT HAVING COLLEGE AVENUE BE A TYPICAL CORRIDOR OTHER THAN THE HUBS THAT I THINK ARE AT 106 STREET
IS THAT ACTED UPON OR WAS THAT JUST A SUGGESTION? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD OFF ON THAT. WE HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE FEEDBACK. I HAVE RECEIVED SOME FEEDBACK AND MOST OF THE FEEDBACK IS AGAINST THE TYPICAL CORRIDOR THAT I WANTED TO HAVE A GROUP DISCUSSION OR FACILITATE THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THERE ARE ONE OR TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME TO SAY YOU KNOW THEY WOULD LOVE MORE.
THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE GONE AND THEY HAVE MADE INVESTMENT AND THEY THINK THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTIES WOULD GO UP IF SOME OF THOSE AFFORDABLE HOMES WERE GONE AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN A TOWN HALL MEETING.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: AND THE OTHER THING I APOLOGIZE I HAVE TO LEAVE BUT 146TH ST. IS A TYPICAL CORRIDOR ALL THE WAY ACROSS AND WOULD LIKE THIS COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER CARVING OUT THAT SECTION WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY IN THIS DISTRICT ME, STEPPING IN WITH THE ABSENT COUNSEL BETWEEN OAK RIDGE AND 31 WHERE OLDER AFFORDABLE HOMES IN THAT AREA THAT ACTUALLY ARE NOT IN DISREPAIR THERE IN GOOD SHAPE I WOULD LIKE THAT RESIGNATION MOVE BETWEEN OAK RIDGE AND 31 BUT AGAIN THIS IS NON-COMMITTEE IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION.
>> CHAIR: COUNCILOR TIM HANNON I'M GOING TO HOLD US IN COMMITTEE SINCE COUNCILOR GREEN HAS THE TOWN HALL TOMORROW NIGHT AND THEN PRESIDENT KEVIN RIDER CAN DECIDE IF HE PULLS IT ON MONDAY OR IF WE NEED ANOTHER. COUNCILMEMBER ADAM AASEN?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR I WANT TO REHASH THE WHOLE CONVERSATION I THINK WE ARE STILL GETTING IN THE DEFINITION OF TYPICAL CORRIDOR OR MAYBE ORIGINALLY GETTING PEOPLE AFRAID OF WHAT IT MEANT. THERE ARE SEVERAL CHARACTERISTICS AS WE MENTIONED . IT CAN HAVE SOME OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF THE CHARACTERISTICS IN ORDER TO BE A TYPICAL CORRIDOR. COMMERCIAL COULD BE A CHARACTERISTIC. IN SOME OF THESE AREAS BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. IT COULD ALSO BE THE BEING A TYPICAL PATHWAY FOR CARS I WOULD ARGUE 145TH ST. IS DEFINITELY THAT WAY ALREADY WERE NOT PUTTING THAT GENIE IN THE BOTTLE. BUT I RESPECT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING COUNCILMEMBER TIM HANNON.
MAYBE THE DEFINITION PUTTING FEAR IN PEOPLE WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WE REMOVED SOME AREAS WE REMOVED 126 STREET IT PROBABLY DIDN'T NEED TO BE REMOVED BUT BECAUSE PEOPLE HAD MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OR MAYBE THE PDEFINITION COULD HAVE BEEN CLEARER IT WAS JUST EASIER TO REMOVE IT AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WERE RUNNING INTO AT COLLEGE AS WELL. SO, I DON'T KNOW, ADRIAN IF THERE'S A SOLUTION TO THAT. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SOME OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS IT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO HAVE ALL OF THE CHARACTERISTICS IN ORDER TO BE A TYPICAL CORRIDOR BUT SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS IT MIGHT HAVE. I WOULD SAY 146 STREET DOES HAVE SOME OF THOSE CHARACTERISTICS ALREADY.
[00:50:07]
>> SPEAKER: IT ACTS AS AN OVERLAY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THAT IT ALLOWS SOME FLEXIBILITY BUT WOULD STILL NEED TO FOLLOW THE CARE OF IT IN THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CONTEXT IS. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I'M NOT OBJECTING ACROSS THERE. THE ISSUE WASN'T, AGAIN, IS IT ALREADY THERE OR WILL IT BECOME THEIR WHEN IT BECOMES IT ENCOURAGES HIGHER DENSITY NOT HIGH DENSITY BUT HIGHER DENSITY, TALLER BUILDINGS, ETC. AND AGAIN I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE COMMENTS TOMORROW NIGHT, TONY, FROM THE FOLKS DOWN IN HOMEPLACE ABOUT THAT. I CAN SEE IF BUILDING HOMES WERE IN DISREPAIR BUT LIKE I SAID ALONG THAT SECTION BETWEEN OAK RIDGE AND 31 WELL-MAINTAINED HOMES AND SOME OF OUR MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES WHICH WE DON'T HAVE MANY OF. BUT AGAIN I UNDERSTAND SINCE THIS ISN'T, THIS WILL SIT HERE FOR LITTLE WHILE I WANTED TO GET IT OUT THERE BEFORE.
THANK YOU. >> CHAIR: COUNCILMEMBER GREENE? TWO COULD YOU GO TO THE MAP? ALL RIGHT. PULL IT UP A LITTLE TLE BIT? YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT COUNCILMEMBER TIM HANNON JUST BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, ON 96 STREET BETWEEN SHELL BORN AND DITCH YOU KNOW, I HAVE DRIVEN THROUGH THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES ESPECIALLY WHEN 465 IS A MESS FROM MICHIGAN ROAD TRYING TO GET TO MY HOUSE. IT IS, THERE'S PRETTY NARROW PATHS SOMEWHERE IN THERE AND HAVING IT GO TO A TYPICAL CORRIDOR, CAN YOU EXPLAIN IF IT BECOMES A TYPICAL CORRIDOR, NOT JUST WHAT'S ON THE - WELL, THE PAGE YOU ARE ON EXPLAINS WHAT COULD GO ON THE TYPICAL CORRIDOR BUT HOW WIDE THE TYPICAL CORRIDOR WOULD BECOME A BOULEVARD OR
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? EVENTUALLY. >> CHAIR: THE TYPICAL CORRIDOR IS INTENDED TO BE ONE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THEN THE THOROUGHFARE IS A SEPARATE MAP THAT ADDRESSES THE STREET ITSELF. BUT REGARDING THE DEVELOPING PATTERN ITSELF IT WOULD ALLOW FLEXIBILITY ALONG THIS AREA. LET ME GET BACK TO THE PAGE. ADDITIONAL BUILDING COVERAGE ALONG THERE IF IT WERE TO DEVELOP AN ADDITIONAL-SORRY, ONE GREATER STORY THAN THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE FLEXIBLE ITEMS THAT ARE MENTIONED HERE.
. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: ALL RIGHT, BECAUSE I HAVE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS ALONG THAT AREA THAT ARE ALL RESIDENTIAL AND THEY HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN ON MAYBE NOT ALL OF 96 STREET BUT BETWEEN DITCH AND SHELL BORN ON BECOMING A TYPICAL CORRIDOR AND HAVING SOME OF THOSE AMENITIES, THE POTENTIAL FOR THEM TO GO
ALONG THAT STRIP. >> SPEAKER: I WOULD ADD ANYTHING IN A SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ACQUIRE AND DEVELOP. SO, THIS WOULD BE ONLY ALONG THE AREAS THAT AREN'T ALREADY IN THE SUBDIVISION OR UNDEVELOPED AREAS.
>> CHAIR: COUNCILOR NELSON? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHAT IS THE CONCERN?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: I THINK ADRIAN BROUGHT IT UP IF IT BECOMES A TYPICAL CORRIDOR, EVENTUALLY, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THAT IF IT IS A TYPICAL CORRIDOR, ULTIMATELY WHAT WILL HAPPEN? WILL IT BECOME AS A THOROUGHFARE, ZERO THAN IT IS TODAY? I DO HERE LOTS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT TRUCKS DOING WHAT I DO SOMETIMES BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC. YOU KNOW, ON 465 GETTING OFF ON 100 FOR STREET THERE'S LOTS OF TRAFFIC AND TRUCKS AND OVERALL
[00:55:03]
TRANSPORTATION. I THINK THOROUGHFARE IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS ON IT IS GOING TO BE EXPANDED AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE EXPANDED TO AND ALSO THE COMBINATION OF NOT JUST EXPANDING THE ROAD BUT BECOMING MORE HIGHER VOLUME AND MORE TRUCKS AND MORE EVERYTHING BUT ULTIMATELY CHANGING THE TALLER BUILDINGS THE MIXED-USE BUILDINGS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS EVENTUALLY GOING ALONG THE 96TH ST. CORRIDOR. SO, THOSE ARE THE COMPLAINTS I'VE BEENHEARING BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. >> CHAIR: PRESIDENT KEVIN
RIDER? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: BECAUSE IT CAME UP IN THE CONVERSATION I WAS CORRECT THAT I COSTITUENTS A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO AND THEY SAID, WE DON'T FEAR THIS ORDER WE DON'T LIKE IT. THEY WERE BOTHERED BY THAT AND I THINK I'M THE ONE THAT FIRST USE THE WORD FEAR SO I BLAME MYSELF I THINK I USED IN A PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY SAID WE DON'T FEAR IT WE JUST DON'T LIKE IT. I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT IT. AND, I LIKED WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WE HAD SOMEBODY TRYING TO DO TOWNHOMES AT SHERMAN AND MAIN AT THE ENTRANCE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT GOT TURNED DOWN. WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO TURN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS INTO DEVELOPMENTS, THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. I DON'T IN ANY WAY SEE THIS HEADED IN THIS DIRECTION AND WE HAVE PROVED THAT BY TURNING THAT ONE DOWN SO I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
>> CHAIR: ARE YOU PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I'M NOT GOING TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO FOLLOW-UP WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
TO HAVE A OF A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION ON THAT. >> CHAIR: COUNCILMEMBER SUE FINKAM DID YOU WANT TO DISCUSS ANYTHING? ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FOR SECTION NUMBER 2? IF NOT WE WILL MOVE ON TO SECTION NUMBER 3 STREET TOPOGRAPHY APOLOGIES.
[LAUGHTER] I KNOW! COMMITTEE, AMENDMENTS, DISCUSSION? NO, COUNSEL? OKAY. THEN WE WILL
MOVE ON TO SECTION NUMBER 4. COUNCILMEMBER TONY GREEN? >> SPEAKER: I DID HAVE
SOMETHING ON THE THOROUGHFARE MAP. >> CHAIR: TAKE YOU FOR
REMINDING ME. >> SPEAKER: I WANTED TO GIVE EVERYONE A CHANCE ON THE CROSS-SECTIONS IF THERE WERE COMMENTS. SO, A COUPLE OF THINGS SOMETHING WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. WE HAD SHOWN A PROPOSED LOCAL CONNECTION BETWEEN BASICALLY CLAY TER., BOULEVARD / RIDGELINE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 31 AND THAT WAS INTENDED TO GO ALL THE WAY OVER TO RURAL ROAD THIS ILLUSTRATION SHOWS A GOING FROM CLAY TERRACE BOULEVARD TO RAMONA AND THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A CONNECTION ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO RURAL ROAD AND THAT IS A REVISION THAT WE PROPOSED IF THE COUNCIL WOULD SO CHOOSE. AND IT WOULD BE A PROPOSED LOCAL STREET.
>> CHAIR: COMMITTEE, IF SOMEONE COULD MAKE A MOTION? OR IF THERE IS A QUESTION, CHANGE THE
MAP, WE HAVE TO AMEND IT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME?
>> CHAIR: CONTINUING THIS PROPOSED LOCAL STREET CONNECTION THAT WE SHOW BETWEEN
CLAY TER., BOULEVARD ALL THE WAY OVER TO AURORA ROAD? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES. I WILL
MOTION TO ADD THE PROPOSAL LOCAL BETWEEN AURORA AND MONA. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: SECOND.
>> CHAIR: ANY DISCUSSION? COMMITTEE ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSING SAME SIGN?
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: HAVE A
QUESTION. >> CHAIR: COUNCILMEMBER TONY GREEN MACK.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: CAN YOU GO TO THE SOUTHEAST COLUMN I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE CONCERN. LET SAY TOWN ROAD BETWEEN 116TH DOWN TO 96TH ST.
YEAH, 106? NOW, CURRENTLY, IT IS JUST A TWO LANE, RIGHT, MIKE? AS PART OF THE
[01:00:11]
DISCUSSION WE HAD ABOUT THAT PIECE OF LAND. SO, SOME OF THE CONCERN WHEN PEOPLE SAY, ALL RIGHT, THIS NOW THAT GREEN SUGGESTS IT WILL BECOME WHAT, A BOULEVARD? A BOULEVARD. OKAY.IF IT BECOMES A BOULEVARD THE THOROUGHFARE JUST IMPLIES THAT NOTHING CHANGES IT JUST GETS
WIDE AND BECOMES A BOULEVARD, RIGHT? >> SPEAKER: YES AND ONLY IF DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED. THIS IS A LONGER ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, BUT ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IF A DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS SET ASIDE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO, IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED.
ANOTHER FUNCTION OF THE THOROUGH THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS IF THE CITY WOULD MAKE THE CHANGE THEN THIS WOULD ACT AS A GUIDE FOR THE CITY IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE CORRIDOR. HOWEVER, NOTHING IS AS PERFECT ON A MAP AS IT IS, ON THE GROUND AS IT IS ON A MAP AND CERTAINLY THE CITY WHEN MAKING IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO COVER THE FEES AND ANY NUMBER OF COMPLICATIONS THAT MAY COME ALONG ON A STRETCH OF THE STREET. THE CITY MAY NOT IN FACT ACQUIRE, THE GOAL WOULD BE TO ACQUIRE THAT DIMENSION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY HOWEVER THERE ARE REALITIES THAT MAY SKEW THOSE REQUIREMENTS OR CHANGE THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN REAL LIFE WHEN THE GENUINE PROJECT IS PROPOSED.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: THIS IS PART OF THE CONFUSION AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN RIDER YOU BROUGHT THIS UP AT LEAST ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN ROAD AND IN MY DISTRICT THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD, PEOPLE ARE FAVORED FOR THE BOULEVARD TO WIDEN THINGS BUT THEY ARE CONCERNED IF IT BECOMES A BOULEVARD AND IT IS LINKED TO A TYPICAL CORRIDOR OR SOMETHING ELSE, OTHER THAN THE BEAUTY WILL BRING IN POTENTIALLY MIXED-USE ALONG THAT CORRIDOR AND NO ONE ELSE WANTS MIXED-USE ALONG THAT 116TH TO 96. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE BOULEVARD AND IF IT BECOMES A BOULEVARD IT WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS WHATEVER THE CASE IS. SO, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CONCERNED. AGAIN, THEY WANT THE BOULEVARD BUT THEY DON'T WANT THE BOULEVARD TO LEAD TO A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL, SO ON. ALL RIGHT. 96TH ST. LIKE WE WERE HAVING THE DISCUSSION, PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TYPICAL CORRIDOR THAT'S NOT
NECESSARILY LINKED TO THE IDEA THAT 96 BECOMES A BOULEVARD. >> SPEAKER: WRIGHT, THE DIMENSIONAL CROSS-SECTION OF THE STREET IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND IN THIS CASE, ALONG TOWN ROAD THE DEVELOPMENT AND THOROUGH THOROUGHFARE MAP LED TOGETHER AND EVENTUALLY THE STREET COULD BECOME WIDER BUT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN DOES NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING BUT THE STATE CHARACTERISTICS. AND SO, IT WORKS TOGETHER, BOTH THE MAPS WORK TOGETHER. EVEN IF THERE IS A WIDER STREET PROPOSED IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN SUPPORTS OR ENCOURAGES COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: YOU ARE SAYING THAT IF IT BECAME A BOULEVARD THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUGGESTS IT CAN'T BE COMMERCIAL OR MIXED-USE ALONG THE AREA?
>> SPEAKER: RIGHT. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: IF THE BEAUTY LATER CAME IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN?
>> SPEAKER: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION CAN LOOK AT AS PART
OF THE REVIEW. >> CHAIR: COUNCILMEMBER SUE FINKAM?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE LAST MEETING OR NOT BUT I HAD TEXTED THE COUNSELORS ABOUT CREATING A CONSERVATION CORPS FOR RIVER ROAD. I HAD
[01:05:06]
PROPOSED FROM TALL TIMBER TO 122ND ST. AND I ASKED IF WE WANTED TO SIT FURTHER SOUTH I CAN'T MAKE THAT MOTION SO IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN TONIGHT BY SOMEONE ON THE COMMITTEE I'M GOING TO KICK IT WHEN IT COMES BACK TO COUNSEL BUT I KNOW THAT COUNCILMEMBER ADAM AASEN HAD SOME QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THAT. I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP.>> COUNCIL MEMBER: MIKE AND ADRIAN IF WE WERE TO BRING THAT DOWN AS A CONSERVATION DISTRICT
ALONG THE RIVER ROAD, IF WE WENT FROM 146. >> SPEAKER: EXCUSE ME TALL TIMBER FROM 22ND WAS MY INITIAL PROPOSAL. THE TWO WE WOULD BE IN NEED OF A PROPOSAL TO LEASE
SOUTHERN ENDING PROPOSAL. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: WHICH ONE IS TALL TIMBER? WHAT IS THAT?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: IT IS THE NORTHERN END OF END OF MOFFITT ARM AREA SOUTH OF THE SCHOOL.
YOU COULD SAY HAVE HER SICK, FRANKLY. THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE FINE IT WAS RIGHT IN THAT GENERAL AREA AND I THINK THAT THERE WILL BE A PARK ENTRANCE THERE IF I AM RIGHT, A PARKING LOT? SO, IT LOOKS LIKE HALVERSON WOULD BE BETTER ESSENTIALLY RIGHT THERE IS
WHERE THE SCHOOL IS. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: IS THERE ANY REASON YOU COULD NOT BRING IT
DOWN ALL THE WAY TO 96? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: RIVER ROAD STOPS AT 116TH.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: THAT IS A GOOD POINT. >> SP>> COUNCIL MEMBER: I CAN D
IT TONIGHT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: MADAM CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION
TO CREATE - >> COUNCIL MEMBER: HAVE HER SICK MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
IT IS ONE ROAD OVER. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: HAVE HER SICK TO ONE OR 16TH ST..
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIR: ANY DISCUSSION? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES, CAN YOU
MOVE SO I CAN SEE THIS VISUALLY WHAT THE PATH IS? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: SOUTH OF THE
ELEMENTARY. >> CHAIR: I WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: I MAKE A MOTION. >> CHAIR: I GOT DISTRACTED WHILE I'M WRITING THIS DOWN ALL OVERSIGHT AYE AND AGAIN SAME SIGN. THIS PASSES 4-0.
>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIR: ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS FOR SECTION 3? ALL RIGHT.
THEN WE ARE MOVING ONTO SECTION NUMBER 4 AND ADRIAN I KNOW YOU HAVE SOME CHANGES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: MY PROPOSED CHANGES ARE RELATING TO THE BUILDING AND PEDESTRIAN CHANGE
MAP. I WILL GET TO IT HERE IN ONE SECOND. >> SPEAKER: THERE ARE TWO ON THIS MAP THAT I PROPOSE OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE REPOSED. ONE IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP WHICH I REQUESTED A COUPLE MINUTES AGO WHICH WOULD ADD A MULTI USE PATH ALONG THAT SEGMENT OF STREET CONNECTION BETWEEN AURORA ROAD THE MULTI USE PATH ALONG THAT PROPOSED STREET. IN THAT INSTANCE THERE IS ALREADY A MULTI USE PATH BETWEEN CLAY TER., BOULEVARD AND WE WOULD EXTEND THAT TO A RURAL ROAD AND THEN WE NOTICE THAT WE HAD A MISSING PATH SEGMENT BETWEEN SPRING MILLER ROAD AND JUST SOUTH OF 106 STREET DOWN TO 96TH ST. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MULTI USE PATH A REQUIREMENT AND RESTORE THAT TO
THE MAP. THAT PATH REQUIREMENT LONG SPRING MILL. >> CHAIR: ANYTHING FURTHER?
[01:10:09]
COUNCILMEMBER SUE FINKAM. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: SO, WERE ALL OF THE MISSING VAST SEGMENTS THAT THE COUNCILOR WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THE CITY ENGINEER HAD ORIGINALLY
IDENTIFIED BAKED INTO THIS PLAN? ARE THEY CONSISTENT? >> SPEAKER: I BELIEVE SO. I SAW THE LIST VERY EARLY SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING HAS CHANGED. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT
IS ANYTHING THAT I CAN CHECK AGAIN. >> CHAIR: WOULD YOU MIND? IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. AND THEN IF WERE GOING TO HOLDOVER IT COULD BE ANOTHER DISCUSSION WITH HOWEVER IT COMES BACK. I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE CONSISTENT. IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO JUST SAY THE WEST SIDE AND THE EAST SIDE. WE CAN CATCH THEM ALL IT WOULD BE GREAT IF
WERE TALKING INTENT. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILOR NELSON? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING AS A COUPLE OF AREAS ON THE WEST SIDE THAT I WANT TO PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THAT I RECEIVED A LOT OF CALLS AND THAT WOULD ALONG SHELL BORN WHERE KIDS ARE TRYING TO RIDE SAFELY TO SCHOOL AND THAT WOULD BE FROM LET'S SAY 131ST DOWN TO 126 AND THEN SOME PROBABLY AND THEN ON 116TH ST. IN FRONT OF WEST PARK CONNECTING IT ALL THE WAY TO SHELL BORN. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS CONNECTED BY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS INDEED THE CONNECTION THAT IS SO SIMILAR. FOR THE AFTER WHAT I ASKED FOR WOULD BE PERFECT.
>> CHAIR: THOSE ARE GOOD POINT. COUNCILOR TONY GREEN? >> COUNCIL MEMBER: YES AND ALSO IF YOU COULD CHECK, THERE'S A COUPLE AND I WILL LOOK AT JEREMY'S LIST AGAIN THERE WERE A COUPLE MULTI PATHS PROMISED AND HAVE HER SICK BY 109 9TH ST. ON THE KIND OF EAST OF THE HOME PLATE AREA AND THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PUT IN THIS SUMMER BUT EVERYTHING IS GETTING DELAYED. SO, I DON'T SEE THEM ON HERE AT ALL. MORE LIKE COUNCILOR NELSON IS SAYING ON 116TH ST. YOU CAN SEE CLAY CENTER WHICH IS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND BETWEEN CLAY CENTER ROAD AND GOING THROUGH CROOKED STICK THERE'S A LOT OF CLOSE CALLS. YOU'VE GOT KIND OF A HILL THERE THAT IS BLIND AND THE KIDS ARE TRYING TO RIDE THEIR BIKES. IT IS A DANGEROUS AREA. SO, CONNECT THING 116TH ST. TO CLAY CENTER ROAD AND THEN ALSO ALONG CLAY CENTER ROAD I KNOW ENGINEERING HAS BEEN LOOKING AT TRYING TO PUT A MULTI PATH CONNECTING SPRING MILL STREAMS TO CLAY CENTER RIGHT NOW. THERE IS NO WAY TO GET IT. THEY HAVE TO CUT THROUGH ON THE SPRING MILL SIDE AND THEN GO DOWN SPRING MILL AND GO DOWN JACKSON GRANT TO GET TO SPRING MILL ROAD HERE THERE'S NO PATH TO GET FROM SPRING MILL TO GET DOWN TO CLAY CENTER. I KNOW ENGINEERING HAS BEEN TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF A CULVERT THERE BUT THAT NEEDS TO
BE ADDRESSED AS WELL. >> SPEAKER: IF YOU COULD PULL BACK UP THE TEXT BOX WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO GET A MOTION ON FROM THE COMMITTEE? AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION
FROM THE COMMITTEE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: I WILL PROPOSE OR I WILL MOTION TO ADD THE PROPOSED MULTI PATH AND ADD A MULTI USE PATH TO SPRING MILL AND 96 AND 106.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: A SECOND. > CHAIR: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AND OPPOSED SAME SIGN IT CARRIES 4-0. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FROM COMMITTEE OR COUNSEL? OKAY. WE ARE AT THE END OF THE PLAN. AGAIN, THIS WILL BE HELD IN COMMITTEE AND JACOB, IF YOU COULD PULL TOGETHER A LIST OF ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE TONIGHT AND SEND THEM OUT TO COUNSEL SO WE ARE ALL IN THE AGREEMENT OF THE WORDING AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED AND THEN WE WILL WAIT TO HEAR FROM COUNCILOR TONY GREEN AS WELL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: SEVERAL PEOPLE BROUGHT THIS UP TO ME IN THE LAST FEW DAYS AND I THINK
[01:15:07]
WELL, I THINK ALEXIA WAS ON THE EMAIL BUT I WAS COPIED ON IT AND THEN I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH THE DEVELOPER PEER THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HOW THE -THEY CALL IT A VERY DIVERSE AREA A SPECIAL AREA PLAN. AND, HOW EXAMPLE 31, I WROTE THEM DOWN, KEYSTONE, MICHIGAN ROAD, WHEN WILL WE START SEEING THOSE, THE MORE DETAILED FOR INSTANCE SOUTHWEST, MY AREA OUTSIDE OF HOME PLACE YOU HAVE 2 PLACES HOME PLACE IN THE SOUTHWEST PART OF MY DISTRICT. THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT IS REALLY THE GAME PLAN FOR THIS AREA OVER THE NEXT 10 TO 15 YEARS? KIND OF LIKE THE KEYSTONE ISSUE ROAD. ANY IDEAOF WHEN THOSE WILL BE COMING AFTER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? >> SPEAKER: THE FIRST ONE WERE GOING TO BRING TO YOU IS A 31 OR DOOR. CURRENTLY THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF INTEREST UNTIL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CORRIDOR AND I FEEL THAT IS KIND OF URGENT AND THEN HOME PLACE WILL FOLLOW SHORTLY AFTER THAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
WANT TO ELABORATE ON THAT TIMING WISE. >> SPEAKER: THAT IS ON THE WORK PLAN FOR NEXT YEAR THE HOME PLACE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE COULD GET STARTED THIS YEAR BINGING ON HOW THE REST OF THE YEAR CALENDAR SHAKES OUT. I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS ALREADY PLAN AS PART OF THE C3 PLAN AND PART FIVE CRITICAL CORE DOORS AND SUB AREAS THERE IS A LINK DID HERE ON THE SECTION 5 OF THE WEBSITE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER: WHEN WERE THOSE ADOPTED? >> SPEAKER: THEY WERE ADOPTED ALONG WITH THE C3 PLAN HOWEVER, SOME OF THEM HAD BEEN STANDALONE DOCUMENTS THAT HAD BEEN DONE OVER PREVIOUS YEARS AND DECADES. SO, THEY WERE TRANSLATED INTO THE C3 FORMAT AND WE CREATED A LINK TO THAT BUT WE ARE NOT PROPOSING TO AMEND ANY OF THOSE AS PART OF
THIS PROCESS. WE WANT TO STUDY THOSE MORE INDIVIDUALLY. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: OKAY. ASIDE FROM THAT SOUTHWEST CARMEL WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE NEXT 10 TO 15 YEAR PLANS ARE FOR
SOUTHWEST CARMEL. >> CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTIONS?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.