HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 04-23 600 CMWAGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP
Monday, April 23 2007
Council Chambers, City Hall
6:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment District Zoning
E. ADJOURNMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: Gladstone Zoning Discussion
DATE: April 18, 2007 for the April 23 City Council Workshop
Background
On December 18, 2006, the city council authorized project expenses for the detailed
design and analysis of the Phase I Gladstone project. The approved project expenses
included drafting of a zoning code that would reflect the guiding principles and concepts
of the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan.
On February 5, 2007, city staff presented a brief introduction to the proposed Gladstone
zoning code during a city council workshop. The proposed zoning approach is a form -
based code which will enable the city to articulate and achieve the desired pattern and
character of uses within the Gladstone neighborhood. Form -based codes regulate
building facades and site frontages based on an overall district character and the
interface between development and the public domain (which is most commonly a public
street).
On March 12, 2007, the city council approved revisions to the Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment Plan. The revisions included removing all existing single- family zoned
property from the plan and reallocating those housing densities to the core of the
neighborhood. The city council also approved a comprehensive plan amendment that
adopted the entire Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan as an amendment to
the city's comprehensive plan, allowing for future village -style developments as
envisioned in the plan.
On March 26, 2007, city staff presented the draft Gladstone Neighborhood Development
Code during a city council workshop. The city council requested additional information
from staff regarding building placement in relation to the master plan guidelines and
determining memory care /assisted living unit counts in relation to the master plan's
allowed densities.
Master Plan Amendments
The March 12, 2007, master plan amendments have been completed and are attached
for city council review (Attachment 1 — edited version and Attachment 2 — final version).
The development strategies section of the plan has been revised to reflect the removal
of all existing single- family zoned property from the plan, with the redistribution of the
housing units that were proposed on those sites to the core of the neighborhood. The
proposed number of units listed under each development area caption reflects the
"flexible" number of units agreed to by the city council, keeping in mind that the overall
master plan and comprehensive plan amendment allows for 650 new housing units.
Once the city council has had an opportunity to review the revisions, city staff will create
a final master plan document for distribution to the city council, commissions, and
boards.
Form -Based Codes
Summary of Form -Based Codes
The Gladstone zoning code is drafted as a form -based code. Form -based codes
regulate the form of development, particularly the structure, based on the frontage type.
Required frontages of buildings will be based on the type of street a development fronts
and the district in which it lies. Each frontage type is described by a set of standards
addressing height, site planning, building elements, and use. This approach will allow
for the most appropriate development form based on the character and function of the
adjacent public street or trail.
Form -based codes are designed to provide more flexibility and fewer barriers to
development than conventional zoning codes. Cities use such codes to promote
redevelopment in a largely built -out community or area, such as Gladstone. For this
reason staff drafted the Gladstone zoning code to reduce many of the traditional barriers
to redevelopment.
Cities Who Have Adopted Form -Based Codes
There are many cities in other parts of the country that use form -based codes for areas
of their city they hope to revitalize including Lenox Village in Nashville, Tennessee;
Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District in Arlington, Virginia; Central Petaluma
Specific Plan in Petaluma, California; and Lakefront Master Plan in Syracuse, New York.
There are also many cities in other parts of the country that use form -based codes as an
overall replacement to all conventional zoning codes including many cities in south
Florida; Tacoma, Washington; Fort Collins, Colorado; Sonoma, California; and Hurcules,
California.
The form -based code approach in Minnesota, however, has all been partial or
piecemeal, created as overlays or master plan codes. In approximately 2002 St. Paul
adopted what has been termed a hybrid form -based code called the traditional
neighborhood code. This code has helped areas of St. Paul redevelop successfully. St.
Paul's first pure form of a form -based code has recently been adopted for the new West
Flats redevelopment area, which is located on the south side of the Mississippi River.
Since the code's adoption, the city has seen the development of the new US Bank client
services center and an upcoming residential development. It has also been said that the
new code has held the Bridges project, proposed for the West Flats area of St. Paul, to
standards which were set by the community rather than a more intense development as
proposed by the developers.
Gladstone Neighborhood Development Code
The draft Gladstone Neighborhood Development Code is attached (Attachment 3). This
form -based code has been drafted for the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment
area and is intended to enable and encourage the implementation of the six guiding
principles of the master plan. The neighborhood districts and street types, which is
2
found on page 6 of the code, has been revised to reflect the changes made to the
master plan by the city council on March 12, 2007. No other changes to the draft code
have been made since the city council's initial review of the code on March 26, 2007.
Building Placement
Citv Council Discussion
During the March 26, 2007, city council workshop, the city council discussed how
building placement along Frost and English Street is addressed in the master plan. One
opinion was that four -story buildings would only be allowed on the rear of the properties,
with two -story buildings allowed along Frost and English. Another opinion was that four
story buildings would be allowed along Frost and English, if the third and fourth stories of
such buildings were setback further than the first two stories.
Citv Staff Research
On July 12, 2006, the city council adopted a resolution which provided direction on the
revisions to the Gladstone master plan (Attachment 4). Building height, setback, and
massing were approved with the following language: "In general, lower buildings are
required when they are closer to the street. They can go higher as the building mass is
further set back, up to four stories. Buildings with greater mass should be set further
back to be less imposing from street view. Care should be taken to `blend' the scale of
the new buildings with the existing."
On December 18, 2006, the city council adopted the Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment Plan. Several areas of the master plan refer to building height, setback,
and massing as follows:
1. Page 4 -2: Orient more intense development to Frost Avenue and English Street,
the core areas of the neighborhood.
2. Page 4 -10: Orientation and massing of buildings is a key factor in fostering a
comfortable pedestrian environment. Specifically in commercial areas where the
pedestrian should be able to park and stroll by active store fronts without having
to navigate through large parking lots and along long blank walls.
3. Page 4 -15: New buildings should be placed, scaled and oriented on a site so
that they "blend" with existing structures that may remain. Variation in facade
footprint is encouraged (setting some facade areas back from the right -of -way) is
encouraged within a range of up to 20 percent of the frontage length and up to 12
feet back from the right -of -way. The upper front fagade of the building
(penthouse level) is encouraged to be set back by 8 to 16 feet allowing for a
garden terrace overlooking the street. Buildings along Frost and English that
average three or four stories in height with taller elements such as penthouses or
lofts shall be set back further from the street.
4. 4 -19: Building heights in the Frost Avenue North neighborhood should range
between 2 to 4 stories. Design features should be incorporated into 3rd and 4th
floors that steps the building back to reduce the impact of multiple stories and be
less imposing from the street view.
5. Page 4 -20: Building heights should be "stepped back" from the street as they
grow in height.
6. Page 4 -21: Building heights in the English Street South neighborhood should be
greatest along English Street.
7. Page 4 -22: Taller structures located in the Frost Avenue East neighborhood
should be oriented on Frost Avenue and the height of buildings stepping down as
they approach existing lower density residential uses south of Frost Avenue.
Gladstone Zonina Agnroach to Buildina Placement
The draft zoning code breaks down the public streets in Gladstone to four specific types
including main village street, secondary village street, residential street, and green
street /trail corridor. In addition, lands adjacent these streets are further broken down
into district types including neighborhood 1 (village core), neighborhood 2 (village edge),
neighborhood 3 (village residential). Building frontage types, including building height
and setback to the street, vary in each of these street types and districts.
Frost Avenue and English Street are characterized as main village streets and would
function as the primary community streets. Properties guided as mixed use along Frost
and English are located in the neighborhood 1 (village core) district. This district would
accommodate the highest level of density /intensity of all the districts and is meant to be
an active urban center for the neighborhood. The Gateway and Vento Trails (located on
the north and east side of the neighborhood 1 districts) are characterized as a secondary
village street and a green street/trail corridor.
The draft zoning code allows for more commercial style, four -story buildings along Frost
and English (main village streets). However, only the first two stories of the building can
be located within 8 feet of the right -of -way, with the third and fourth story being setback
an additional 10 to 20 feet. This requirement meets the master plan's development
strategy within this area (page 4 -19) which states that design features should be
incorporated into third and fourth floors that steps the building back to reduce the impact
of multiple stories and be less imposing from the street view.
The draft code allows for more residential -style buildings which can vary from two to four
stories along the trails (secondary village and green streets). These buildings must be
located 20 feet from the trail right -of -way, instead of 8 feet as allowed along Frost and
English. Four -story buildings must have the fourth story fagade setback an additional 10
feet from the right -of -way, for a total of 30 feet. These structures would be compatible to
the existing single - family homes located on the opposite side of the trails and would
meet the master plan's development character guidelines (page 4 -15) by blending new
buildings with existing structures.
Building Placement Scenarios
City staff has drafted a site plan and cross section of two building placement scenarios
on the Maplewood Bowl site for the city council's review. The first scenario shows two -
story commercial or residential buildings along Frost and English, with a larger four -story
building oriented toward the back of the lot, adjacent the Gateway Trail (Attachment 5).
4
The second scenario shows a tiered four -story commercial or residential building along
Frost and English, with more residential -style two -story buildings oriented toward the
back of the lot (Attachment 6).
It is staff's opinion that the draft zoning approach to building placement (reflected in the
second scenario) meets the directions of the city council during the various editing
sessions and final version of the master plan. This is accomplished by reducing the
impact of multiple stories by creating a less imposing view along Frost and English
Street, as well as ensuring new structures are compatible to the existing single - family
structures located on the opposite side of the Gateway and Vento Trails.
Memory Care /Assisted Living Units
Countina Units
The city code and comprehensive plan does not differentiate between a market rate unit
versus a memory care or assisted living unit. Therefore, density is calculated on an
overall number of units per acre, regardless of the type of unit.
Dabar Companies, LLC, is proposing a 180 -unit senior housing development within the
Gladstone neighborhood proposed to be called Lake Phalen Estates. Lake Phalen
Estates will consist of 115 market rate units, 45 assisted living units, and 20 memory
care units.
On a square footage basis, memory care units are 112 the size of a market rate
residential unit and assisted living units are 314 the size. With this information, and
concerns about the distribution of the overall development magnitude (650 new housing
units) within the Gladstone neighborhood, the city council has discussed the possibility
of counting the memory care and assisted living units differently when calculating density
within the Gladstone neighborhood.
The Gladstone area of the city is the only area with an approved master plan which
specifically calls out a maximum number of units within one neighborhood. For this
reason, it is reasonable to calculate memory care and assisted living units differently
within this area of the city only. City staff proposes adding a definition within the
Gladstone zoning or comprehensive plan which would describe a memory care unit as
being counted as Y2 a unit and an assisted living unit as being counted as % a unit when
calculating the reduction of units from the master plan only. With this scenario, Lake
Phalen Estates would count as a reduction in 159 units from the overall 650
development maximum, rather than 180.
Park Access Charge
The park access charge for senior housing is calculated by the number of persons per
unit (depending on bedroom mix) x the fee ($900) x the number of units. A 20 -unit
senior housing development would be charged $19,800 in park fees under this
calculation (1.1 x $900 x 20 = $19,800). If the overall number of units are reduced
based on the percentage of memory care or assisted living units as described above, the
park access charge will be affected. A 20 -unit memory care housing development would
then be charged $9,900 (1.1 x $900 x 10 [112 of 20] = $9,900). This would only affect
park access charges within the Gladstone neighborhood.
As -of -Right Development
The city's current zoning code requires any commercial or multi - family development,
which is allowed "as -of- right," to only receive design review approval from the city. The
draft Gladstone zoning code follows this practice and policy and would only require
design review approval, unless density bonuses are proposed.
Density bonuses will encourage unique design standards that enhance the visual quality
of a development project, provide unique lifestyle housing choices, and exemplify
sustainable design practices as called for in the approved master plan. The zoning code
will allow density bonuses through a conditional use permit process. Conditional uses
would be reviewed by the planning commission for land use review and
recommendation, community design review board for design review and
recommendation, and would require city council approval.
As stated above, the form -based code approach is designed to break down barriers to
redevelopment. One of those barriers is the expense and time associated with the city's
review process. The draft code, therefore, proposes a development "as -of- right" clause
which would allow developments with a total footprint of less than 9,000 square feet,
which do not require density bonuses, are a maximum of three stories in height, and
meet all design standards, to be permitted through an administrative process as
established by the city council. The advantage to a developer is if they meet the intent
of the code they do not have the normal two or more months of development review.
The benefit to the city is that redevelopment may actually happen and the investment in
the process may be redirected to the project rather than consulting and legal fees.
As a suggestion the administrative review process could be accomplished in one of two
ways:
The city's current community design review board code allows administrative
reviews for minor building projects. A minor building project is any improvement
on an existing commercial or multi- family development which is under $200,000.
These projects are reviewed by staff, and then submitted to the city council and
community design review board for review and comment. The code allows the
city council and board 15 days in which to respond or appeal staff's decision. If a
project is appealed, the board formally reviews the request.
2. The city could set up a staff review team which includes various departments and
disciplines (building, planning, engineering, natural resources, legal, etc.). A
department head would then issue final approval if all elements are consistent. If
any parts are questionable, the administrative review team could have the option
of referring it to the board or city council.
As -of -right development is mentioned in the master plan on page 4 -5 where it states that
"the master plan encourages `as -of- right' a development pattern that would achieve the
lower end of the above projections for residential development." In summary, if the
development meets the intent of the code, and does not require density bonuses, the
development should be permitted with limited formal reviews. The as -of -right
development clause warrants further discussion and direction by the city council.
I
Prohibited Uses
The form -based code is designed to limit the uses allowed to multi- family residential and
neighborhood retail and commercial uses by limiting the form of the frontage and
development types. As an example, a big box retail development or used car lot would
not be able to develop as per status quo (i.e., increased setbacks to the street, parking
in the front) with the restrictive form, size, and quality of frontages required by the code.
Also, in the mixed use areas of the neighborhood the first floor developments can adjust
with the market by allowing for residential space initially, with the possibility of converting
the space to retail or commercial when that market grows in the area.
Even with the limits to the form of the development, the city may want to consider uses
which would specifically be prohibited in the area. The draft code proposes prohibiting
pawn shops, adult uses, and churches or religious institutions. The pawn shops and
adult uses being prohibited for their nuisance factors and the churches or religious
institutions for their parking demands. Prohibited uses warrants further discussion and
direction by the city council.
Nonconforming Structures and Uses
With the adoption of the master plan and comprehensive plan in the Gladstone
neighborhood, all of the existing buildings have become legal nonconforming structures
in that they do not meet with the guiding principles and development strategies
envisioned in the master plan. According to state statute these structures can remain
until the structure is destroyed to more than 50 percent of its fair market value.
Many of the existing uses in the area have also become legal nonconforming uses,
specifically uses which include exterior storage. These uses have also become legal
nonconforming uses and can remain, according to state statute, until the use ceases for
more than one year or until the use is destroyed to more than 50 percent of its fair
market value.
Expansion of these nonconforming structures and uses would be permitted with a
conditional use permit, according to the city's conditional use permit ordinance.
Therefore, an existing nonconforming structure or use in the Gladstone area could
expand with a conditional use permit.
Questions to Consider
When reviewing the draft zoning code, the city council should consider the following:
Does the building placement issue meet with the city council directives?
2. Is the memory care /assisted living unit calculation adequate and fair?
3. Are there concerns with the as -of -right development clause or other areas of
development review?
4. Is the process of applying the code clear? If not, what parts of the code are most
unclear?
7
5. Overall, does the code achieve the principles and vision established in the
master plan?
6. Are there elements that seem too restrictive? If so, which ones?
7. Are there elements that are not restrictive enough? If so, which ones?
8. Are the districts identified consistent with the master plan? Should there be other
districts?
9. Are the street types adequate? Should there be others?
10. Are the frontage types adequate? Should there be others?
11. Are there other density bonus conditions that seem appropriate?
12. Should additional design details be required, i.e., percent of material on the
exterior?
Proposed Zoning Code Review Process
City staff hopes to receive additional guidance and direction from the city council during
the April 23 city council workshop. City staff then proposes to present the draft zoning
code to the planning commission, community design review board, and historical
commission for feedback and recommendation to the city council. Review by these
commissions and board could begin as early as May 1, 2007.
Conclusion
City staff will present another short review of the Gladstone zoning code, and discuss
the data set forth in this memorandum at the April 23 city council workshop. Time will be
allotted after the presentation for questions, comments, concerns, and direction.
Attachments:
1. December 12, 2006, Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan — With Edits from March 12,
2007 (Separate Document)
2. March 12, 2007, Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan — With Changes as Adopted by the
City Council (Separate Document)
3. Draft Gladstone Neighborhood Development Code (Separate Document)
4. July 12, 2006, City Council Resolution Providing Direction on the Master Plan
5. Building Placement Scenario One - Two Story Commercial /Residential on Frost Avenue
6. Building Placement Scenario Two — Four Story CommerciallResidential on Frost Avenue
8
CONTINUATION OF MEETING Attachment 4
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
5:00 P.M. Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 06-18
6. Authority to Apply to the Met Council for a Livable Communities Grant for Gladstone
Redevelopment
a. City Engineer AN presented the report.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution providing proiect direction and
authorization to submit a livable communities grant application to the metropolitan council:
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING PROJECT DIRECTION AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT A LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES GRANT APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
WHEREAS, in March 2004, the Maplewood City Council established a top priority to be the
redevelopment of the Gladstone area; and,
WHEREAS, in December of 2004, the City of Maplewood initiated a redevelopment planning process
for the Gladstone area generally defined as the area along Frost Avenue between US Highway 61 and
Hazelwood Street N and the area along English Street between Ripley Avenue and the Gateway Trail; and,
WHEREAS, the City has an approved Comprehensive Plan that establishes future land use patterns in
the Gladstone area consisting of open space, single and double dwelling residential, light manufacturing and
)usiness commercial and that addresses public facilities and implementation strategies; and,
WHEREAS, the Gladstone area contains a number of older commercial uses and parcels that
demonstrate signs of obsolescence, inefficient land use and site layout and other signs of a need for
revitalization; and,
WHEREAS, the City is aware of a number of properties within the project area that are likely to
redevelop in the near future and the desired development patterns are not likely to be consistent with the
current Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, in January 2005, the City Council established a 20-person Task Force of property owners
and local residents to provide recommendations to the City Council on various alternatives; and,
WHEREAS, the master planning effort has provided a plan that establishes a vision and future land use
plan to guide redevelopment efforts on an area wide basis as opposed to reacting to individual redevelopment
proposals, and,
WHEREAS, the master planning effort has resulted in a concept that explores higher density housing
development on redeveloped parcels within the project area and limited neighborhood commercial uses; and,
WHEREAS, the development concept is supported by a range of public improvements to area park and
open space systems, roadway improvements, streetscape enhancements, burial of overhead utility lines, and
storm water management systems; and,
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2005, the Maplewood City Council adopted a resolution directing the
preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), which is a substitute form of environmental
review that replaces an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) as provided for in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3600 and is a more appropriate form of environmental
review that evaluates cumulative impacts resulting from multiple re-development projects spread over a larger
07-10-06 City Council Meeting
area; and,
WHEREAS, over the last two years the City has conducted a number of public meetings to discuss and
evaluate various redevelopment concepts as presented by private developers, neighborhood groups and
.iterested landowners, including conducting a Public Hearing on April 18, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided comments and questions on the Draft Master Plan and
conducted two Work Sessions to discuss and debate the merits of the overall development plan.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, County of Ramsey,
State of Minnesota, hereby provides for the following:
1. Authorize staff to develop a Planning Document based upon a revised Master Planning
Document for the Gladstone Redevelopment Initiative at the flowing development levels and public
improvement investment:
Business Retention
Work with Gladstone businesses to encourage them to remain in the neighborhood after
redevelopment begins Do so by promoting loans and grants available for business owners.
Dev pment on the _Savanna
Do not allow any building development—only natural development with minimal historic public
structures. Improvements to the Savanna should be one of the first public improvements made
in the neighborhood Efforts should be made to explore conservation easements or Other legal
forms to protect this parcel for future generations and until such protections are in place, no sale
of Savanna or park land shall occur as part of the Gladstone project.
Savanna Improvements
Only natural improvements should be allowed. This includes savanna restoration as a natural
open space.
Flicek Park Improvements
Make limited changes to Flicek Park. Any changes to Flicek Park will be enacted by the council
based upon recommendations of the parks commission and park-planning staff
Culvert I Bebo roveme
Modify the plan so that it includes other options for a pedestrian /storm water system in this area
including enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety at the roundabout and trail intersections. The
bebo should be considered optional for consideration later and is not specifically included as
part of the overall project plan.
mItY
The allowed density shall be a maximum of 650 housing units. This can only be achieved based
on a system of to-be-established density bonuses and project goals. The minimum density
established shall be based upon the existing land-use and zoning within the area. The density
bonuses and project goals shall focus on providing credits to developments which provide
increased Senior Housing, Senior Assisted Living Housing, Accessible Senior Housing,
Underground Parking and green building construction as the primary target focus points.
Building Height Issues
In general, lower buildings are required when they are closer to the street. They can go higher
as the building mass is further set back, up to four stories.
07-10-06 City Council Meeting
Building Setback, Massing and Scale Issues
Identical to building height criteria—buildings with greater mass should be set further back to be
less imposing from street view. Care should be taken to "blend" the scale of the new buildings
with the existing.
Power Line. Burial
Support for the burial of power lines at a reduced cost or alternative financing methods.
Eminent Domain
There is no support for the use of eminent domain to achieve project goals.
Level of Public Improvements–Frost Avenue Improvement
The likely investment will range to a maximum of $14 million to $15 million in public installed
improvements, although efforts shall be explored to have the developers install as much of the
infrastructure as practical. The goals shall include reduction or removal from the Master Plan in
the amount of center median along Frost Avenue, using trees to create a colonnade along Frost
Avenue and making Frost Avenue narrower by use of restriping. Limited use of irrigation
systems is encouraged. The Roundabout at Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive should be
explored further to see if other alternatives might be more effective. The priority for
improvements shall be Savanna upgrades.
Phase I of the Gladstone project shall focus improvements on the western end of the project
area and shall include improvement to the transportation and drainage components of the
project. This shall include exploration of improvements to bus service within the area, the
installation of improvements to facilitate the construction of bus shelters, a possible roundabout
at Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive, improvements to the TH 61 and Frost intersection, area
trail connections and improvements, the existing Frost Avenue bridge and the drainage
improvements on the western end of the project, along with possible Savanna improvements.
The value of these improvements is hereby authorized up to a maximum of $2.5 million. The
City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare a feasibility analysis of a project to this amount.
Use of Tax Increment Financing
The goals of the project shall be to limit or eliminate the use of Tax increment Financing. The
Phase I – Gladstone project improvements shall be explored with a goal of using zero Tax
Increment Financing. The direction shall be to explore alternative financing through grants and
development contributions through assessment and project payments.
2. Authorize the staff to prepare and submit a Livable Communities Demonstration Grant Application to
the Metropolitan Council prior to the due date of July 17, 2006.
3. Authorize the Public Works Director to assemble an Implementation Team which shall include the City
Park and Recreation Director, the City Finance Director, the City Senior Planner, the City Planner, the
consultant Master Planner and the consultant Engineer to develop the following reports and plans:
K A Prioritized Public Improvement Plan, including a suggested timing schedule for implementation
based upon a 3-5 year project build out.
B. A Prioritized Development Plan, including a listing of potential development parcels that
potentially provided for the first project within the Development Area based upon the TIF District
and Public Improvement Plan.
07-10-06 City Council Meeting
C. A Preliminary Planning and Zoning Analysis that provides an evaluation of the land-use and
zoning needs to achieve the provisions of the Planning Document.
4. Appropriate $50,000 to the Gladstone Project Fund from future project revenues to pay for the Planning
Consultant, Engineering Consultant and Financial Advisory Consultant noted above within the
Implementation Team, The Public Works Director is hereby authorized to administer the contracts for
said consultants up to the $50,000 maximum.
Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes-All
07-10-06 City Council Meeting
:�r
�V\M�130D efivk- S ITL I CAIRA)UF,
l �
��s
T
� � T Q� ,c, (-d TCcl I
�.
V
Er-Tt c) 0
\N
&- 57-
- Fi�\3m �-DJL--�
.5TPIEET
�Df'vwc N - P,`� - U,e qkc
p Epi-i-I 19- L—
RY � � AqL-
L qo
DF — W P�
MAAA �sk cWYNNIII, cd
�C\MAA, 76W6
7