My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2015 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:09 AM
Creation date
2/19/2015 12:52:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2015 02 12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 8, 2015 <br />Page 7 of 23 <br />Rice asks about fiscal analysis numbers. Regarding one time capital expenditures, the <br />projection is that it will be $764,000 in the red. Why is it that much in the red? <br />Russ says the number of residents coming in will put a demand on capital facilities such as the <br />Rec Center, Police, and roadway network. Based on calculated revenue from one -time <br />investment use tax as well as impact fees, the numbers do not match. <br />Rice says the goal is to have a net 0 or a positive. Why is it so far from the ideal? This is more <br />than one -third to be in the red. <br />Russ says it is the type of land use that is proposed as well as the price points of housing units. <br />Fees are based on evaluation and market rates. This is a different price point than the <br />Commission is accustomed to seeing. There is no expectation that a residential development <br />alone necessarily would be positive unless the price points of the ho - are high. The Art <br />Underground is currently conceived as 11,000 SF of the commerci- ®- elopment and is a <br />501(c)(3). There is no revenue from property tax. <br />Rice asks how this project compares to other residential deve 4 W - ks that have been <br />considered in the past. <br />Russ says that Steel Ranch and North End came in fisc -utral or <br />there are junks of commercial property. The commer .perty at Ste <br />developed yet. Residential developments general) - - Y egative in fiscal d <br />economic perspective of how much sales it brin. . nd what residents bring <br />tly positive because <br />ch has not been <br />ment. From an <br />city, there are <br />hugely positive economic impacts that are not fi <br />Rice asks if there are any options to close the gap. <br />Russ says changing the users in the commercial po <br />II economics <br />to pay fo <br />looks at <br />re wi <br />Hecla positions the quadrant to perfor <br />Rice asks where the funding stream c <br />Russ says it comes from annual budge <br />Rice asks on an ongoing basis, if the mo <br />hfrastructure with Kaylix and <br />well as help Christopher Village. <br />e impacts, being short $764,000. <br />al revenues and budgets. <br />egative $85,000 /year. <br />re °nue generated from the <br />to compensate for the <br />Russ says there are service <br />property in taxes and se <br />expected deficits. <br />Rice asks about the <br />zoned? <br />Russ says the Davids <br />storage at th - .. ck. It <br />Rice ask <br />Russ <br />exte <br />thro <br />Ranch <br />eded to s <br />of gen - - gh re <br />erty. Is it annexed into the City? How is it <br />ine Canine (doggie daycare) and RV <br />Commercial. <br />the Davids• . ighline subdivision? <br />ivision dedicated their land, the dotted line shows the Kaylix <br />ity has the right -of -way and funds set aside to construct it <br />ation with the Davidson Highline owner since Steel <br />antern The City will have to acquire the property. <br />en t <br />not construe <br />e Lanterns. St <br />pproved prior <br />Russell asks <br />considering de <br />Russ says by Pla <br />Russell asks about <br />will be 15 units. Is ther <br />a A and D regarding density. He asks if the PC should be <br />e or by planning area in terms of conformity to Comp Plan? <br />Planning Area A is an urban center. <br />g Area A, there is a maximum density up to 30 units /acre, but there <br />a minimum amount of units? <br />Russ says it is a fiscal question. In an urban center, it is supposed to be a commercial corridor <br />and not meant to be residential. There will be a mix of units. <br />Russell says Planning Area B matches 30 units /acres and Planning Area C matches the 25 <br />units /acres. Planning Area D has 15 units /acres. He asks about the maximum allowable <br />building height in this zone district. <br />Russ says there is no zone district as it is annexed property. 2 -3 stories are the guideline. <br />Properties to the west are 50'. Staff measures the elevation of the building, high and low points, <br />and takes the average. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.