Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION February 5, 2018 <br />DRAFT <br /> 2 <br />2. Winter Property Land Use, Comp Plan – Community Development Director 46 <br />Grochala reviewed his written staff report that provided a recap of the action of the city’s 47 <br />advisory boards and the council’s previous review of the property owner’s (Mr. Winter) 48 <br />request to change the planning guidance for his property to allow for some residential 49 <br />development. Based on the council’s previous direction, Mr. Winter did submit a 50 <br />concept plan. However Mr. Winter’s submitted plan does not follow the council’s 51 <br />direction on the maximum residential percentage and density. 52 <br /> 53 <br />Mr. Winter’s representative explained that they have submitted a plan developed by 54 <br />Westwood Engineering. He explained why the plan makes sense and is realistic (i.e. 55 <br />road development, flexibility in residential areas) and how the residential percentage in 56 <br />the concept plan is actually in the range of 50%. The concept is to spread out the 57 <br />residential. The representative said this plan is something that will be realistic for the 58 <br />future. 59 <br /> 60 <br />Mayor Reinert expressed his support for 4-6 units per acre density for the residential 61 <br />element; with that density range he is comfortable with the 50% range for residential use 62 <br />total. He’s less interested in calling it mixed use because it’s not specific enough. 63 <br />Mayor Reinert said he isn’t supportive of an apartment development on the land. 64 <br /> 65 <br />Mr. Grochala explained that the guidance is provided up front and the council would 66 <br />ultimately be considering approval of a more specific planned unit development proposal. 67 <br />Mr. Grochala asked how much flexibility a developer would have in clustering the 68 <br />density. Council Member Maher suggested the goal is for the Winters to be able to sell 69 <br />their land and for the city to end up with an appropriate development; that the plan she 70 <br />wants to see. 71 <br /> 72 <br />The council concurred with guiding the Winter’s property as mixed use with up to 50% of 73 <br />the land designated for residential at 4-6 units per acre. 74 <br /> 75 <br />3. Water Tower Siting Update – City Engineer Hankee introduced Greg Johnson 76 <br />of WSB and Associates. He reviewed the staff report and the council’s past direction to 77 <br />analyze four sites for possible siting of a city water tower and the results of the analysis 78 <br />including the suggestion to add two possible sites. Mr. Johnson responded to the 79 <br />council’s questions about: water main locations, sea plane airport location, and concerns 80 <br />about the impact Site Five could have on the improvements already planned in that area. 81 <br />Mr. Johnson recommended that the council consider the additional costs attached to some 82 <br />sites as they consider which site(s) should be further explored. He explained that water 83 <br />towers typically take about two years to design and construct. 84 <br /> 85 <br />The council expressed concerns on the possibility of building in the middle of a fully 86 <br />developed area, the implications of moving on privately owned land and the 87 <br />unwillingness of the school district to work with the city. The council indicated that their 88 <br />preferred site is Birch Street and Centerville Road which is located on city property and 89