Town
Council Work Session
Mayor
McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Jennifer Robinson,
Julie Robison and Nels Roseland
Absent:
Council Member Michael Joyce
The
work session was called to order at
The
public hearing on this matter was conducted at the September 22, 2005, Town
Council meeting and a copy of the Alston Regional Activity Center Concept Plan,
vision plan and urban design guidelines, is attached to and incorporated in
those minutes as Exhibit B.
Consultants
Matt D’Amico and Cecily Bedwell from the Design Collective Incorporated in
Mr.
D’Amico reviewed the vision and issues arising from the Charette held earlier
this year—that process engaged citizens to help define the development
character of the Alston area property.
Mr.
D’Amico stated five important characteristics arising from the Charette as the
kind of place the participants would like to see as plans for the activity
center are formulated:
1.
Having a sense of community where there are activities, events, festivals,
places for gatherings, and social, cultural and civic events;
2.
Making the area pedestrian friendly and walkable;
3.
Having a diversity and network of open spaces infusing the plan with squares,
greens, plazas, shops and/or houses;
4.
Having a network of narrow streets that are comfortable and
safe to cross which move throughout the area in a variety of different
ways dispersing the traffic; and
5.
Having a mix of uses so that the area is not all auto oriented and allows people
to walk to shops and services.
Mr.
D’Amico said that the information which came out of the Charette will help
shape the design guidelines which will serve as a guide for developers, planners
and the Town looking out 20 years.
Ms.
Dorrel expressed concern about the conflicts and controversies arising from key
issues of the plan, such as the status of the illustrative master plan. She
asked about its role, stating that a truly illustrative plan should provide
alternate illustrations. She said those issues need to be resolved before moving
forward.
Ms.
Dorrel said that council expects a certain level of conformity with an activity
center concept plan and that they are missing the mark in trying to get to the
level of detail and conformity normally expected when using that term. She said
that Alston ACCP relies on a 20 year plan but with the granularity that is used
for more immediate short term plans. She wants to ensure that there is enough
buy-in to approve and move the plan forward when it reaches the end of the
process. Ms. Dorrel stated that the development community and property owners
should reassured about the plan.
Ms.
Bedwell said that the first step in the Alston ACCP process was the
determination to do something collective rather than piecemeal. She said it
would be a burden if one developer were to take on the responsibility of going
through the entire process. The purpose of having an open Charette was to gain
information through active participation of the stakeholders and the balance and
vision of the plan were established during that time period. Ms. Bedwell said
that the alternative to this process is to receive plans piecemeal, having no
collective decision-making, no network of streets to better distribute the
traffic, no sense of place, and no walkable streets.
Ms.
Bedwell stated that the illustrative master plan is a framework for the next 20
years, looking at land availability and the transportation plan and making
everything work together. The plan provides options and addresses the concerns
of land owners, developers and residents. The illustrative is one method of
laying out the land and that is where the principles of interpretation begin.
Mrs.
Robison stated that it is important to understand the terminology and asked for
a definition of the illustrative plan. Ms. Bedwell responded that the
illustrative is one way to lay out the land plan that adheres to the documented
guidelines. She said it provides a baseline for the network of interpretation
and allows for some deviation from the plan while still abiding by the
guidelines for the layout of the land.
Mr.
Roseland expressed a concern with the specifications and requirements, and
stated that council should determine their comfort level with the degree of
granularity. Mr. D’Amico replied that there is a lot of flexibility in the
plan. He said that the illustrative plan is one interpretation of the design
guidelines—without the interpretation there is no way to know if the
principles have been met. Ms. Bedwell added that there are no architectural
guidelines in the plan. She said that some reevaluation may need to occur at a
later date in order to achieve the vision, but the guidelines are needed to
evaluate projects as they are submitted.
Mayor
Pro Tem Smith asked why Crossroads is being compared with Alson. Ms. Bedwell
responded that although Crossroads is very successful, everyone in the Charettee
Crossroads does not have a pedestrian environment and that there are continuous
traffic problems. Mrs. Robinson added that crossroads is a place to do errands,
not a place people go to hang out. She said that participants in the Charette
wanted Alston to be a place to go for entertainment, enjoyment and relaxation.
Mrs.
Robison said that with Alston advance planning of the roads can be done to avoid
the multi-million dollar fix ups that could occur. Mr. D’Amico said it is also
important to have the mix of uses so that people are coming and going at
different times of the day which allows for better traffic movement. He said
that shared parking with green spaces, squares and plazas was also important.
Ms.
Bedwell said the open space requirements are fairly minimal. Another reason for
doing the illustrative plan is to test the process.
Vertical Mixed Uses: Ms.
Bedwell said that vertical mixed uses is having uses one on top of the other
with commercial on the ground floor and residential or office above. The goal of
the plan is not to just have one story commercial space. Some members of the
development community were concerned that they wouldn’t’ be able to do mixed
uses in today’s market.
Ms.
Bedwell said one way to address developers concerns is to implement a phasing
plan that would allow developers to create their own phasing and strategy for
incorporating the vertical mix use; they would be able to map the residential
for their build out schedule. Another way to address concerns is create a
minimum and maximum build out.
Mr.
Roseland said that he supports the vertical mix use recommendation. Mrs.
Robinson said that she also likes the vertical mix.
Mrs.
Robinson asked about the vertical mix going higher. Ms. Bedwell responded that
there is an allowance for the vertical mix to go higher; it is something to be
considered in the 20-year plan, even though it is a deviation from the original
plan.
Mrs.
Robinson asked about overburdening the road network if the mixed uses are
allowed to go higher and whether more open space would be granted if the
vertical height were increased. Ms. Bedwell responded that the other
guidelines would balance out the mixed uses and the streets would still need to
be lined. She said that six stories would be appropriate in the center of town,
but not in the residential areas; the key is to allow what is appropriate for
the vision plan.
Mrs.
Robinson asked if vertical parking is tied to vertical buildings. Ms. Bedwell
replied that although the plan shows mostly surface parking structured parking
is allowed and that the traffic study can support structured parking.
Mrs.
Robinson asked if the vertical mix takes into account the traffic model
overlaying the entire area. Ms. Bedwell said that the illustrative allows for a
certain amount of two stories buildings. She said that a four story parking
structure can be done but that certain requirements would still have to be
achieved.
Mrs.
Robison asked if the plan addresses the conversion from flat to vertical parking
structures as the demand increases. Ms. Bedwell responded that it is allowed and
that shared parking is encouraged. She added that structured parking would have
to be done in order do the full build out specified in the guidelines.
Mr.
Roseland left the meeting at this point, approximately
Scott
Ramage of the Planning Department said that one of the reasons for the
principles of interpretation is to allow for flexibility and triggers for when
vertical elements are required. He said that there are different ways to address
the timing and the amount for the vertical element.
Ms.
Dorrel is concerned about the volume of mixed use in the ultimate build out. Ms.
Bedwell said that there isn’t a requirement for the maximum to be done. She
said that the mechanism for minimum and maximum levels needs to be clarified.
Ms.
Dorrel asked about developing in detail for 20 years out. Ms. Bedwell said that
it comes naturally with phasing strategies and trigger points.
Mr.
D’Amico said that they will clarify the quantities and timing and build in
flexibility for both of them.
Big
Mrs.
Robison said that the plan does accommodate a need for some big boxes; however,
going with more big box spaces would be detrimental to the current plan. She is
concerned about the big box in area planned in Parkside—the orientation,
design and configuration is significant because it is the entry point from
Buildout limits: Roger Henderson of Kimley Horn, Incorporated, said
that the Town’s standard for level of service is D or better. The plan that
was collectively developed during the Charette was fairly well balanced across
all interections. However, since that time the amount of development within the
study area has significantly increased. After running the traffic model again
results were produced that have level of service E conditions, the nature of
which is highly unpredictable. The question is whether the amount of development
value and the amenities in the plan are worth the extra traffic intensity. He
said that an analysis can be done in the next traffic model that gets to the
level of service D and as well as quantifies the amount of lost development. He
said that the development needs to be staged with the road improvements.
Mr.
Ramage said that about one half million square feet of retail would be dropped
out of the different quadrants to obtain a level of service D. He said that
amounts to about $180 million in tax base.
Mrs.
Robison asked what would replace the reduction of retail space in order to
achieve level of service D. Mr. Ramage responded that a determination would be
made whether it would be better to replace it with other non-residential or
residential.
Mrs.
Robison said that with mass transit and the live/work vision they should allow
it to develop to the current configuration and provide incentives for the mixed
use nature and the future mass transit.
Mr.
Ramage said that the traffic model assumes a bonus. He said that there is a
reduction because of the mixed use community and if they deviate from the mixed
uses the retail has to be dropped down.
Ms.
Bedwell said that the area is currently a donut and adding the extra network
provides local residents with alternate routes. She said that density is needed
to make the rail line station stop viable in that area—there has to be enough
residents and office workers in order for that to happen.
Next Steps: Jeff Ulma of the Planning Department asked whether
council was ready to continue with the plan, have staff continue to work with
stakeholders in flushing out issues and working on refinements, and have the
Alston ACCP go to the Planning and Zoning Board on November 21st.
Mayor
McAlister said he is comfortable with the current schedule.
Ms.
Dorrel asked if there was a benefit to moving it on to the planning and zoning
board.
Mr.
Ulma replied that staff has not been given the ability or the time to make
changes to the plan. He said that there has been a constant critique of the
process without staff having the ability to close that part of the process and
start working on the changes. He said that staff is ready to respond to the
comments and work on a revised version of the plan to present to the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Mrs.
Robinson said that she is in favor of moving forward and having staff work on
the action items. She said that if there are further issues which need to be
reviewed staff should let council know and suggested that anyone with heightened
interests meet with staff to discuss any actions or changes.
Mr.
Ramage stated that staff will provide council with a redline copy outlining the
changes. He said that they have asked all of the stakeholders to provide
suggested text for the principles of interpretation and that staff is working on
alternate plans for the neighborhoods.
Ms.
Dorrel expressed concern about the fundamental issues being addressed. She said
that there is a lot of vagueness with flexibility and she would like it to be
better defined.
Mayor
Pro Tem Smith questioned whether the market will support the plan.
Mayor
McAlister said that staff should let council know if the plan needs to be
delayed.
The
work session adjourned at