Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 205-08Manager Repor TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:APRIL 7, 2008 CMR: 205:08 SUBJECT:COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO ASSIGN STAFF TO REVIEW POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROCESS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) REVIEW OF LARGE PRO3ECTS BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On January 22, 2008, the City Council voted to set for a future agenda discussion of whether to direct staff to review potential revisions to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process (minutes attached). Staff’s understanding is that the intent of the review would be to provide Council policy overview of key planning issues for major projects in advance of detailed architectural review. Staff believes that potential solutions would encompass more than just ARB review, and has identified a few approaches that could be evaluated upon Council direction. Some alternatives, for tlzreshold sized projects or sites, might include: 1.Developing a two-stage "conceptual plan" and "precise plan" process, with land use, density, and circulation patterns established at the "conceptual plan" revie~v and detailed site desi~a and architecture under review at the "precise plan" review. 2. Stipulating that review of any project involving a tentative subdivision map require a conceptual map review by Commission and Council prior to or simultaneous with architectural review. 3.Revising the review process to require Site and Design Review (ARB, Commission, and Council) for all threshold projects. Staff anticipates that, if directed by Council, these and other potential revisions would be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board prior to review by the City Council. CMR: 208:08 Page 1 of 2 RESOURCE IMPACTS Staff estimates that review of alternative approaches and processing necessary zoning amendments would require an estimated 120 hours of professional staff time and 40 hours of support staff time. Time would be required for analyzing and developing alternatives, public outreach meetings, preparing appropriate ordinance amendments, and at least two meetings each with the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council. This effort would be redirected from other staff rezoning and project review priorities. Additional costs would be incurred for public notice, hnpacts on the permit review timeline and potential project delays would be assessed as part of the analysis. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CURTIS WILLIAMS Assistant Director "STEVE EYI(SLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment Assistant City Manager ’ ATTACHMENT Attachment A: January 22, 2008 Council Minutes (Excerpt) CMR: 208:08 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDED MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER: When this project returns to Council, appropriate notification should be given to neighbors on Wilkie Way and the Charleston neighborhood. Mayor Klein asked why these options were not approached during the initial discussions of the project. Mr. Emslie stated it could have been due to the structure of the real estate transaction, the timeframe in acquiring the property, and the phasing of the project. Given the continuance, bringing the subdivision and condominium maps back to Council together would be possible. Mayor Klein stated when possible, for future projects staff was encouraged to bring them together. He urged staff to return with a more complete history, prior discussions and debates on the project. Council Member Morton requested that when this returned he would like a definition of what the bicycle and pedestrian pathway would look like. AMENDED MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Barton, Burtabsent MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to have staff agendize a discussion on whether we want to request staff to explore options to have the Architectural Review Board report to the City Council, in the case of significant projects which currently only come to Council on appeal. IVlayor Klein stated the Motion appeared to be out of order. Mr. Baum stated the process would be to have Council direct staff to return for a future consideration. Mr. Emslie stated the timeframe would be approximately two days for a planner with management oversight to prepare the staff report. Mr, Baum stated this was a mechanism to bring an item to Council for a first consideration. Staff could not be directed without the item being on the agenda but it could be requested for a future agenda. Council Member Kishimoto stated the goal was to save staff time by having larger projects reviewed by the ARB put on the Council consent calendar. Council Member Schmid stated the Motion was to look at the approval process of the ARB. 01/22/08 i02-399 Council Member Espinosa asked for clarification on the Motion. Council Member Kishimoto stated the Motion addressed only one scenario. The Council sets policy and what was necessary to change the process of larger projects coming to Council prior to ARB or Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC) making final decisions. Council Member Yeh stated he did not support the Motion. MOTION PASSED: 5-2 Klein, Yeh no, Barton, Burtabsent MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Council Member Morton to have staff agendize a discussion on whether we want to request staff to explore the pros and cons of private streets in future developments and to also look at the PASCO clearance on some of these projects. Mayor Klein stated he did not support either Motion. MOTION PASSED: 5-2 Klein, Yeh no, Barton, Burtabsent City Manager Frank Benest clarified the vote was to return for discussion with the Council. Mayor Klein stated there was no staff work to be done on the Motions returning to Council for discussion. MOTION: Vice Mayor Drekmeier moved, seconded by Council Member Morton to have staff agendize a discussion on whether we want to request staff to explore the possibility of securing a public right-of-way from Wilkie Way to El Camino Real on the Dinah’s side of the property. Vice Mayor Drekmeier stated the issue was independent of the Elks Lodge property. There was a potential for a connection that would serve the park and create a bicycle and pedestrian access from Wilkie Way to El Camino Real. He felt it should be explored in parallel with potential access to the Elks Lodge property. Council Member Morton removed his second to the Motion. MOTION AMENDED: Vice Mayor Drekmeier moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa to have staff agendize a discussion, on whether we want to request staff to explore the possibility of securing a public right-of-way from Witkie Way to El Camino Real on the Dinah’s side of the property for non-motorized vehicles. 01/22/08 i02-400