Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 112990 Approved as submitted 12/11/90 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES SUMMARY November 29, 1990 Mayor Lilley called the session to order at 6:04 p .m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Borgeson. ROLL CALL: Cid Council• Present : Councilmembers, Borgeson, Shiers, Lilley, Nimmo and Mayor Dexter Also Present : City Clerk , Lee Dayka Planning Commission: Present : Commissioners Luna, Johnson, Hanauer , Waage and Kudlac Absent : Commissioners Lochridge and Highland Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director ; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo ; Steve DeCamp , City Planner , Doug Davidson, Senior Planner ; Karl Schoettler , Assistant Planner ; and Gary Kaiser , Assistant Planner PURPOSE OF MEETING: A. LONG RANGE FISCAL ANALYSIS - Consideration of October 1990 Review Draft of report prepared by Crawford , Multari and Starr JOINT CC/PC 11/29/90 Page 1 • B. STADIUM PARK - Discussions relating to possible alternatives for the Pine Mountain Amphitheater SUBJECT HIGHLIGHTS: Long Range Fiscal Analysis Mike Multari , from the consultant firm of Crawford , Multari & Starr , introduced other members of the firm who were present : Karl Moore, Dr . Steve French and Steve Nukes. Using a series of overhead projections (all exhibits shown appear in the draft ) , he then gave an extensive overview of the Long Range Fiscal Analysis outlining general assumptions and projected expenditures and revenues. In addition, Mr . Multari highlighted the report ' s three major recommendations: expenditure adjustments, reduction in expanding the scope of services and reduction in existing levels of service. A question and answer period followed . Topics of discussion included annexation of the Atascadero State Hospital , community character definition (rural vs. urban) , growth changes in terms of residential single-family and multi-family construction; and project priorities. Public Comments: Eric Greening , 7365 Valle, asked if a copy of the final draft would be available at the library. The mayor indicated that it would . Doug Lewis of Atascadero inquired whether or not the report addressed the impact of tourism and how much emphasis was being placed upon it . Mr . Multari explained that the analysis suggests that tourism may be a small part of commercial enhancement , but that projections made were conservative. He remarked that if there is a policy decision to encourage the promotion of tourism it could then be given a higher priority. Mr . Lewis then proposed that it would be useful to have suggestions on just how to do this. Additional questions followed . Councilwoman Borgeson asked whether or not new governmental mandates regarding solid waste management , air quality and pollution had been considered as expenditures. Mr . Multari responded that , although not broken specifically down, these matters were included in the range of assumed expenditures. At the request of Commissioner Kudlac , Mr . Multari expanded on JOINT CC/PC 11/29/90 Page 2 the draft ' s recommendation to consider redesignating excess industrial land for residential use. He indicated that it appears the City has more industrial zones than are needed and suggested , from an economical stand-point , it may be better to convert industrial land to single-family residential ( if the area is compatible for such a use) rather than letting it sit vacant . He added that this would require a policy decision on the part of the City. Additional discussion followed . The consultant indicated that the final report could be brought back sometime around the first of year . The City Manager pointed out that this report was the first of four elements composing the fiscal model . There was consensus to direct staff to schedule a joint session of the City Council and the Planning Commission to review and discuss the land use recommendations submitted in the consultant 's final report. Such session to be held during February or March of 1991 . Stadium Park Henry Engen gave the staff report and responded to questions from the Planning Commission and City Council . Commissioner Waage asked the Community Development Director whether there had ever been an appraisal on the property. Mr . Engen replied that there had . A brief discussion followed regarding disclosure of the amount of the appraisal . The City Attorney advised that it would not be inappropriate to divulge the amount because the City was not currently negotiating on the property. Mr . Engen confirmed that the recreationally zoned property had previously been appraised at $125,000. Fred Strong , representing the owner of the property, addressed the Council and Commission explaining that development costs have already amounted to $60,000 and indicated that use conformity has been difficult to determine. He suggested that the City designate those portions of the property that have been historically public for a specific use (such as a small stadium) and , as a trade off, provide clear policy direction for the owner to develop the other portions. In addition, Mr . Strong , reported that the property is presently being used for illegal dumping , transient occupancy, as well as other purposes considered by the community as undesirable. JOINT CC/PC 11/29/90 Page 3 Public Comments: Eric Greening , 7365 Valle, spoke in enthusiastic support of the City ' s acquisition of the property and to the use of it for an outdoor , non-amplified theatre. Mari Mackey, 5504 Tunitas, concurred with the statements of Mr . Greening and to those of Ray Jansen at a previous City Council meeting . She stated that she strongly supported the City ' s acquisition of the property for the purpose of outdoor recreational use. Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, asked that if the owner considers selling the property to the City, that it ask a fair price, be satisfied with a modest profit and help the City establish a resource for its ' economic future. Doug Lewis of Atascadero referred to the county ' s disaster plan and proposed that the property be considered as a prospect for a reception area in the event of disaster . Karen Riggs, 4935 Arizona, announced that a group , "Atascadero Land Preservation Society" was a non-profit organization interested in preserving Stadium Park and remarked that there was indeed much community support for acquisition of it . Discussion ensued regarding the adoption of Resolution 58-89 (designating Pine Mountain Stadium as an important historic site) . Councilwoman Borgeson and Mayor Lilley both gave background about the amended document ' s adoption. Councilman Nimmo asked Mr . Strong which of the allowable uses, given the provisions in the General Plan, did Mr . Ward plan to pursue. Mr . Strong explained that the owner had negotiated with landowners of property between his parcel and the area to be affected by the proposed realignment of Highway 41 and had arranged some tentative agreements for right-of-way. He continued that Mr . Ward felt the existing zoning could be utilized by private industry to develop a viable, recreationally commercial area. Mr . Strong further stated that Mr . Ward had submitted a plan of this type to the City; which was rejected without processing on the basis that it looked residential . Mayor Lilley explained the appeal process and asserted concern about why an appeal had not been made. Mr . Strong stated that the application had been returned by staff and that the matter JOINT CC/PC 11/29/90 Page 4 had never been calendared for a hearing before the Planning Commission. I Mr . Strong indicated that the owner was not adverse to selling the property to the City if acted upon in a timely fashion and , although a figure had not been set , would be open for discussion. Individual comments by the Commission and Council followed . There was a general consensus among both bodies that the property should be retained in public ownership for a recreational purpose such as an amphitheater . Funding mechanisms were discussed and the matter of obtaining a current appraisal of the property was raised . The City Attorney recommended that , before any costs are incurred , Council direct staff to prepare a report on the additional cost of updating the appraisal . He also suggested that staff meet with the owner to determine whether he was interested in selling the property and , if so , under what conditions. Once Council has received the report , he advised , a closed session may be requested to further discuss the issue. There was unanimous consensus to direct staff to prepare a report for further review by the City Council which would include the cost of updating the property value appraisal . In addition, Council directed staff to meet with the owner for the purpose of discussing his willingness to sell and any conditions he may have regarding such sale. Mayor Lilley requested that the Planning Commissioners share with members of Council any thoughts they have on the matter . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adjourn the study session; motion carried . THE STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:42 P.M. MINUTE SUMMARY PREPARED SYi C�e LEt DAYKA, City Clerk JOINT CC/PC 11/29/90 Page 5 f I i