Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrowth Policy Homework Responses 091319 1 | P a g e Planning Board Future Land Use Map Comments Question # : 1 Have the descriptions been simplified enough? The fewer the definitions the less detail can appear on the final map. Board Member Response Henry Happel In general, I think less detail is good. The City should not preemptively be signaling “No” to private sector developments that will reflect demand and are likely to be in the best interest of the community. Cathy Costakis I really like how you have paired down these descriptions. Given the comments from economic development staff...should there be a distinction between heavy industrial and light industrial and should we add some to the N. 7th corridor (and further on either side of 7th)? Lauren Waterton Urban Residential – Overall the description describes a variety of housing types and complementary uses. Do any residential zone districts permit commercial? If so, we should add a sentence – neighborhood serving commercial may also be present. Minor wordsmithing – “Large areas of single type housing are discouraged” – turn it into a positive statement and insert near the top. We want a variety of housing types. CCMU – the 3rd paragraph states that there are used in 2 scales. I think we should consider revising this to just one. With the Regional Commercial land use, CCMU should service neighborhood and smaller scale areas. I believe that if there is a category with 2 scales, that it will lead to confusion and nuance that we don’t need in the plan. Community Core – we should consider keeping this as a category because of it’s unique role with downtown Industrial – based on memo from Economic development, we either need to expand the definition of industrial to include the tech industry or ensure that those uses can fit into the commercial land use areas. Jennifer Madgic Paul Splinter Assuming these are the descriptions in the Sep. 3 memo. In general, I don’t understand the “descriptive statistics”. Not sure if those were for inclusion, but they need clarification/explanation if so. Also like further simplification/reduction of categories, if possible. In general, there is a lot of superfluous language in the descriptions (i.e. why they exist, size, etc.). I’d delete that, and just use descriptions of permissible uses. One paragraph, two tops. Agree with the drops. Would also drop present rural, as we have discussed. Urban Residential: Everything in the first graph starting with the “Over time…” sentence is murky to me. Remainder of first graph, and last graph look good. 2 | P a g e Regional Comm and Services: not sure this is even needed. If so, I’d strike first graph. Present Rural: I assume this is county land and outside city limits. If so, why are we including it at all? Present Rural seems a meaningless category. Despite the language here, my experience is that it’s just a placeholder (i.e. meaningless) that we modify the moment a developer comes in with a proposal to reclassify and rezone. If so, what is it’s purpose? a. If it is to remain, how does the city ensure that it’s “preference” that the land “remain as currently utilized” is met? Hope that no developer proposes a reclassification? Or some other means? b. Ditto for the other two “preferences” listed. c. Also, why is developing at urban densities the last preference? Doesn’t this contradict the city’s intention, repeated throughout the plan, to have all lands within city limits developed at urban densities? How, if at all, can the city discourage or prevent the development of these lands? Do the “facility plans which address the provisions of services within all the planning area” provide an opportunity? Partnering with GVLT on easements? Partnering with the county on the expenditure of open space bonds? Something else? George Thompson Gerald(Jerry) Pape Jr. Mark Egge Chris Mehl Chris S, I don’t think the descriptions came through in the email. As we talked about with Lauren W, Mark Egge; I’d go even further on consolidating: so “urban residential” the REMU and CEMU for commercial emphasis mixed use. So combine/drop the regional commercial and community commercial. Could keep other categories in the Orange C-16: present rural, community core (now missing), parks, pli, industrial. Drop rest. See Q#5 below for more. Question # : 2 Considering the drafts of the maps provided in packets for the Sept 3rd meeting, does the map show use and density (in cooperation with the descriptions) adequately? Board Member Response Henry Happel Yes. Cathy Costakis I think so...? Lauren Waterton Given the corridor development of Huffine, it seems appropriate to consider Regional Commercial and Services on the west end Development east of the large public properties seems unlikely at urban densities. I would think we would show everything beyond as present rural, with no expectation for future services 3 | P a g e Nodes: I think we need to show more regularly spacing for node development. I’m not convinced it needs to be CCMU/REMU boxes, but we need to indicate and articulate the neighborhood centers approach. Jennifer Madgic Paul Splinter I’d drop present rural and encourage further simplification, if possible. George Thompson Gerald(Jerry) Pape Jr. Mark Egge Chris Mehl The map draft still has golf course and terms from current map. See above for categories I’d use to further simplify. Question # : 3 Do you see the seven themes of the plan reflected on the map? If not, what specifically is missing? Board Member Response Henry Happel Yes. Cathy Costakis I think so. But I am concerned that if we really want transit to work in this community we need to designate areas that are "transit ready". Are these the community commercial nodes? Not that we need to identify them on the map but have a good concept of where those "transit nodes" should be. Lauren Waterton 1. 1. Shape of the City. As describes, it states we have defined edges. I think the map should reflect how we intend to do that. The Boulder method (greenspace surrounding the city); the Oregon method (urban growth boundary), or something less defined are options (I’m not advocating for either of those). 2. City of Neighborhoods. Looking at the map, it’s not clear that there are distinct neighborhoods. That is due in part to the reduced number of categories, which is a trade off that seems ok. If we define neighborhoods with commercial nodes, then it’s even more important that we identify those activity nodes at a neighborhood level. 3. Districts – I think we’d want to see more REMU along arterials and adjacent to CCMU 4. Natural environment/parks/os – because parks/os are allowed in all areas, and the map only reflects what is built/completed, it’s a little difficult to show this goal on the map. We discussed adding natural issues onto the map, which would help demonstrate this goal 5. Mobility – this is difficult to show on the map, but I think articulating increased development along arterials and provision for node development, we begin to show how the land use choices and influence mobility 6. Economy – I would defer to the memo from economic development to help guide us in this area. 7. Regional coordination – while still in development, we should evaluate how the triangle plan may influence the future land use to the west. I think we may also want to consider how this reflects 4 | P a g e future plans for MSU. Can we do a quick evaluation of their master plan (assuming its available) and see how it fits? Jennifer Madgic Paul Splinter Honestly, I can’t tell because the map is at an insufficient scale. George Thompson Gerald(Jerry) Pape Jr. Mark Egge Chris Mehl I think the themes are reflected in the draft map. But to emphasize them even more would do what we talked about after the last planning board meeting and create sub-maps for themes: so one for neighborhoods, one for economic development, and so forth. To be clear, not every theme section of the future Community Plan needs to have a map but many could/should. This also allows the main land use map to be a bit clearer and less cluttered which will help public understanding. Question # : 4 Do you see the map integrating adequately with the major transportation network (see attached map with major transportation features) Board Member Response Henry Happel Yes. Cathy Costakis Hard for me to tell but I think it looks Lauren Waterton I think we should be thinking more about the intersections of arterials and minor arterials and the role they play in the development of commercial nodes. We can reference back to the EPS study that recommended that nodes be aligned on those intersections. Jennifer Madgic Paul Splinter Ditto. George Thompson Gerald(Jerry) Pape Jr. Mark Egge Chris Mehl I do. But if others do not, think the fallback of a sub-map (see Q#3 above) would allow this goal/theme to be more explicit. Question # : 5 Are the implementing zoning districts described in Table C-16 properly allocated? If not, what changes would you purpose and WHY? (See this link if you want to see zoning details) We are not editing the zoning at this point. Board Member Response Henry Happel Given the current limited access I have to the information required to answer this question, I can’t say. Cathy Costakis Shouldn't there be a community core designation? What corresponds to B3? Should we add a light industrial? Lauren Waterton We need to accommodate B-3 by either bringing back community core or adding it to CCMU. It also seems appropriate that NEHMU would be appropriate with REMU, as currently NEHMU is orphaned. 5 | P a g e Jennifer Madgic Paul Splinter The Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands makes no sense to me. As presented, it includes every zoning category, rendering it meaningless. Either lands are parks and open space, or they aren’t. Can’t be both. George Thompson Gerald(Jerry) Pape Jr. Mark Egge Chris Mehl The orange version is missing Community Core so B3 only allowed in PLI. Also think the UDO updates got ride of RS except for what exists already. Following up on Q#1. For plan category: Present Rural would be areas already partially developed outside city that couldn’t be developed for variety of reasons. Urban residential: R1 to RMH for zoning REMU: R3, R4 R5 RO REMU and possibly B2M CEMU: R5, REMU, B1, B2, B2M, UMU Industrial: as is in orange Parks: as is in orange PLI: as is in orange Question # : 6 Consider existing public comment (included from Sept. 3rd packet) and determine whether or not you support the idea/request. Board Member Response Henry Happel I am supportive of each of these requests, although I recognize that there well may be important issues not addressed by any of the property owners’ requests. Cathy Costakis I support the requests. Lauren Waterton I would agree with adding the changes to the map as submitted. However, it’s worth discussing that the requests to change to Regional Commercial seems to be more driven by the increased building height allowance, than by what uses would be permitted. If we are concerned with the amount of Regional commercial, we should consider a recommendation to de-couple the request for additional building height from the underlying land use, and create height allowances by other mechanisms. Jennifer Madgic Paul Splinter Need to consider these in context of the proposed new categories. And some will require walk through. George Thompson Gerald(Jerry) Pape Jr. Mark Egge Chris Mehl Several things: a) lots of public comment now outdate if we use new terms/consolidate types on the map and b) generally support consolidation/clarification of split of lots and c) generally up zone to allow more options with greater density.