Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Agenda No. 07-16 <br /> <br />August 23, 2007 <br />Page 16 of19 <br /> <br />Vice Chair Dlugosh said that he favors almost everything in the TOD Strategy as a <br />vision for next 30 years or so. He agreed that the housing concerns raised can be worked <br />through via the update in the Housing Element. However, while he said he generally <br />favors the idea of having residential-above-retail in mixed-use developments on the Red <br />Mountain property at some point, he considers adoption of the language in the current <br />document "just short of eminent domain," which he opposes in almost all instances. He <br />said there must be a way to work out this issue with one piece of property so that we do <br />not just arbitrarily deny the property owner the right to use the property in the near term. <br /> <br />Chair Reed said that perhaps the TaD Strategy could move forward with an "island" <br />around the Red Mountain property for the time being. This way, perhaps, the process <br />could continue with a decision on that particular property held in temporary abeyance. <br /> <br />Secretary Livermore suggested that the Planning Commission might move forward with <br />a recommendation on the TaD Strategy that omits any recommendation on the SP-l <br />overlay, and encourage the City to work the property owner on that. As she indicated <br />earlier, staff has met with many of the property owners affected, but scheduling with Red <br />Mountain did not work this week. Perhaps more information that could go to City <br />Council will emerge if the City can meet with Red Mountain representatives next week. <br />She said that staff certainly can relay the Planning Commission's concerns to the City <br />Council if the Commissioners simply want to omit special review overlay considerations <br />for that property from their recommendations. <br /> <br />Chair Reed agreed that is a good option. <br /> <br />Assistant City Attorney Stuart said that when it comes to the moratorium, it would be <br />necessary to double-check the timeline, because it could very well be that November 6 is <br />the absolute deadline and the moratorium cannot be extended at all. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finberg said that like Commissioner Dlugosh, she supports the TaD <br />Strategy wholeheartedly, and was part of the process in developing it. She felt that there <br />was a great deal of vetting and public comment incorporated, and she believes the City <br />staff listened well to the comments and responded accordingly. She also said that she <br />would be comfortable moving forward with recommendations, but would prefer that the <br />SP-l be clarified before it goes to the City Council, specifying that the property owner <br />could use the property as it stands. Without such a change, she said, that property is being <br />targeted as the only one in the entire TaD to be burdened in this way. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Dlugosh reiterated that some day he would like to see the Red Mountain <br />property look more like what the TOD Strategy envisions, but at the same time he does <br />not believe that "we should be forcing the issue" now. He said that rather than eminent <br />domain, the current language is more like "inverse condemnation," because that is what it <br />would do in his opinion. He suggested that an alternative would be to develop language <br />that would require the property to make changes at some future point that are more in <br />keeping with the TOD Strategy's vision. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collier said that Vice Chair Dlugosh was referring to not a "direct <br />taking" but an "indirect taking" of the use of property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finberg said she would prefer language that would afford revisiting the <br />issue in the future rather than imposing a time limit. She is concerned that a specific <br />