Laserfiche WebLink
<br />('( <br />? <br />? <br />? <br />? <br />j <br />C?- <br />will not be available tmtil August. Mr. Dubelko stated that since the plan was <br />mandated by the charter, the Conuni.ssion should make their recommendations to <br />Council by June 31st. Mr. Skoulis questioned what an alternative development plan <br />was and suggested that the Commission should not have to follow this schedule <br />totally, they could arrange or eliminate some topics. Since this is the <br />second last issue,. Mr. Tallon believed that the Commission might eliminate it <br />later if they felt it was not necessary. Mr. Schultz explained that usually, when <br />there would be more than one way to develop a paxcel and, in that case, they <br />would lay out the various development options and the expected impact on the <br />City. In some areas there might not be an alternative in which case the members <br />could point that out. They will try to take an initial look at the Christ The <br />King property for the next meeting, but he doubted that they could make any <br />specific recommendations. Mr. Skoulis questioned if they would be looking at the <br />areas to be rezoned, both vacant and developed, at the February meeting, or would <br />that be done as the study goes along. Mr. Schultz stated that they will be <br />looking at the existing development of the City and will present a map showi.ng <br />both the developed and tmdeveloped areas. Mr. Skoulis is concerned about when <br />they can start malci.ng recommendations for rezoning etc. Mr. Schultz responded <br />that this will come further along, they do not want to make recommendations <br />without lmowing if the infrastructure will support the proposed development. Mr. <br />Orlowski stated that they would like in-depth information on the vacant tracts of <br />land, permanent parcel numbers, 'Mact acreage, ninnber of owners, since much of <br />this land is zoned Single Family, and without a master plan the developer <br />presents wYiat he wants. Mr. Morgan pointed out that they should be studying <br />developed parcels as well as vacant ones. Mr. Thomas stated that if there is a <br />portion of the infrastructure that cannot support a proposed zoning, he only <br />needs to lnow that, not how many gallons a sewer will take or what the exact <br />water pressure is. Mr. Tallon would also like a summary, but believed that the <br />statics should be available to answer questions. Mr. Schultz stated the initial <br />studies wi11 show vacant and developed areas, and specifics will be provided, but <br />not necessarily at the next meeting. They will present the big picture next <br />month, then the members can pinpoint which vacant axeas should be studied in <br />depth immediately; and depending on how many areas they are asked to review, they <br />should have some of these done by Ma.rch. He further stated that they could <br />include tmder-used parcels, as well as vacant ones. He agreed to deliver some of <br />this informatian on the Friday before the meeting so the members can pick it up. <br />He stated that originally this land use study was to give the big picture, but <br />they can submit more in-depth information since that is what the members want. <br />Mr. Thomas pointed out that at any time a proposal could come in for a use that <br />was totally incongruous with what the long term goals are, and he would like to <br />be able to postpone any approval until it is determined what would be the best <br />use for the community. Mr. Gorris mentioned that the old Sherwin Williams parcel <br />which is vacant now and for which a proposal may be submitted at any time. He <br />also believed that the study should focus on the vacant property, since most <br />developed property will not change in the near future. Mr. Schultz agreed, but <br />pointed out that there are some areas that axe under developed. Mr. Tallon stated <br />that the planners must be given enough time to make decisions, this plan ca.nnot <br />be done piecemeal. Mr. Morgan would also like to delay some proposals until the <br />plan is finished, and believed that the legality of this should be checked out <br />with the Law Department on a case by case basis. Mr. Schultz stated that if they <br />do not look at the infrastructure but then recommended a grandiose plan, it could <br />actually hurt the city. Ms. Ju stated that they must consider the impact of a <br />proposal on the whole city, not just the property immediately surrounding it. Mr. <br />Dubelko believed that there were some developed areas which should be reviewed, <br />4