AG 2003 04 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ted made a motion to approve the Screening and Buffer Yard Recommendation as prepared by staff and Jill Brim seconded the motion. The Committee voted nine (9) to zero (0] in favor of approving the motion; with seven (7) voting members present arid two (2) voting members having emailed or telephoned a co-chair with their preference prior to the meeting. One (1) other member arrived at the meeting late alter the vote had already been taken and therefore, his vote was not counted in the motion. Two (2) other voting members were not at the meeting, nor did they forward votes prior to the meeting. This recommendation will be presented as a discussion item to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission at their May 20th, 2003 meeting. David then directed the Committee's attention to the City Council's third directive: the issue of infill. The directive from City Council was that "Provisions to encourage "inflll" 'development in the Center City and other areas of Concord." Jeff Young explained the handouts prepared by City Planning Department staff that reviewed some eros and cons of infill development and also detailed what the City of Concord .Is currently doing in terms of promoting and addressing infill issues presently. Jeff stated that the Unified Land Plan, once complete, will also assist with promoting Transit Oriented Developments (TOD's) which support infill. Jeff further explained that the "Center City" zoning area for the purposes of this discussion, was not the "City Center" planning district as outlined in the UDO, but was the Center City area that is bounded by Branchview Drive and Concord ParkwayNVarren C. Coleman Boulevard from the NorthEast Medical Center to Highway 49. It is divided into 14 different neighborhood areas. Carlos added that once complete, the Center City Plan will be a great tool for developers. Jeff advised that staff will provide copies of the Center City Plan map at the next meeting. He said that the issue of infill development will impact the Center City area more than it wilt other areas of the City. He briefly explained the "infill map" that was prepared by the GIS Division which showed all properties within downtown that are :potential infill sites (this map did not show vacant or abandoned buildings - these were only "green" infill sites). Jeff advised that there are many buildings that have redevelopment potential and also those sites shown on the map!as infill sites that should be considered as part of this discussion. He said {hat a lot of the vacant properties have been cleared already as part of the City's Code Enforcement efforts. David asked if we had a map that showed all the infill lots that the City currently owns. Jeff said that most of the lots the City owns have been acquired for the specific purpose of the City building houses. Jo Coble interjected that the County owns a lot of the vaqant properties shown on the map. Jeff stated that the map did not show the City-owned properties. Jeff added that we are talking about both redevelopment zand vacant infill for the purposes of this discussion. He UDO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 Page 2 of 6