Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 04 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 8, 2012 Page 8of 16 your face”. He also stated there should be more mixin the number of bedroom units: more 2 bedroom units. Moline stated he lives in the neighborhood and he understands that commercial does not work on this site. He stated the project does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and the variances are not warranted. He stated his agreement with Lipton regarding the need for the community vision. Pritchard stated his biggest concern is the diversion from retail. The loss of the former Wal-Martsite in Lafayette killed the sales tax for the community. He expressed concern with this site being like Crossroads Mall: density, lossof retail, parking and are we holding out for something better. He stated the change in product type is necessary, the product is meeting a need, it will bring benefits to downtown and the transition for the property is acceptable therefore he support theproject. Brauneis statedthis is subprime for retail. This is an ideal spot for multi-family as a future use. He stated he likedtwo things: 1) structure parking is better for the environment but lower density probably couldn’t support a structure and 2)density is better for the environment but maybe this project is too dense. He expressed concerns about how we wish we had a better vision in our Comp Plan. He stated traffic can be managed however the parking could cause problems for the neighborhood. He has a primary concern regarding the height of the buildings. He is not convinced the property values will decrease. If this is passed he would like to see more study done on property values. Lipton led a discussion of comments.He asked “what do we agree on?” 1)Change inuse is necessary 2)Interest in residential product 3)Needs more retail 4)Concerns with height, massing 5)Concerns about public places 6)Parking issues 7)Traffic concerns Pritchard stated it sounds like the commission wouldn’t recommend approval on this submittal. He asked ‘what would it take to move this forward to City Council?” He reminded the commissioner that this is a preliminary review of a project. Russell stated he would not support this proposal in this form because there is too much uncertainty for them to move forward. They aren’t close enough to the right product even during a preliminary review process. Lipton stated the Commissioncould give guidance to the applicant for him to revise and bring back for further discussion and review. Brauneis stated the applicant can still go to City Council with either a yes or no from Planning Commission. Russell asked staff if the application is rejected can the applicant reapply with a different product. Russ stated they could reapply.