CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush indicated that although the Minutes are not completed, Council does have a resolution which incorporates staffs understanding of the substance of that motion. If that is not correct, then the text of that part of the General Plan dealing with the Vineyard Avenue Corridor can be changed. Staff has attempted to take the motion and put it into the written form before you. Mr. Pico also clarified that there are various references to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor throughout the Plan and Council took action on July 1 on the area based on the item on page 2 of the staff report. On July 9, there was a subsequent item that came up in another area that affected the Vineyard Corridor. There has been every effort to be open and give the public the chance to comment on the decisions. Ms. Mohr felt that when a specific plan is prepared, there is generally not the kind of restraint like this unit cap. Staff is instructed to consider all the variables for a property and present that to Council for the Council at that point to make a determination on the appropriate number of units. If Council's determination that 150 units are appropriate and that target were not at the beginning of considerations, would we be vulnerable to an accusation of misleading the property owners? Mr. Roush said the only risk is that if the target number is not included and a plan were developed with a larger number than 150 units which Council found unacceptable, then a lot of time and money would have been spent on something Council was not interested in. Ms. Mohr indicated Council frequently has plans before it with larger numbers than are ultimately approved. Ms. Michelotti indicated the original motion was put forth in the correct way to require studies and analysis and then come to some conclusion on the appropriate number of units based on that and give alternatives regarding infrastructure, etc. When the 150 unit cap was added on July 9, it predetermined what the conclusions would be before you have the analysis. Mr. Tarvet indicated that every point being raised will be discussed again and potentially there may be different recommendations. This is still in the discussion stage and he requested the public testimony to continue. Jan Batcheller, 644 St. Mary Street, indicated General Plans are made to be revised every five years. Is Council trying to set parts of it in stone so future citizens cannot decide their own destiny? She felt it was arrogant to say that the citizens living here today know what is best for the future. The cornerstone of any political document should be flexibility. She referred to comments of some people who desired to have parts of this on the ballot. They say they want to protect their property values. This Council and those people are willing to devalue someone else's property value, for example, the Lemoines, Daphne Christensen, the Vineyard Corridor properties. Where do property rights fit in your picture? The General Plan Steering Committee 07/15/96 - 10-