City Council Minutes 2019 02 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes February 5, 2019 Page 7 of 21 Councilmember Stolzmann asked why alternative 2 would not support a marketplace concept. Prosser stated it might work but would be more challenging to try to come up with uses that would produce more revenue than cost. These are generally organically driven and it is a potential space for something like that but need an active property owner to work with and driven by either developer or property owner It would be a challenge to produce the returns to take the financial risk. Councilmember Stolzmann asked in Alternative 2 what the limitations are on a hotel there today If it is allowed why has no one built one here. Prosser stated perhaps the owner doesn't want to take on redevelopment of the remaining part of the site. Director Zuccaro stated the current height limit is 35 feet in the design guidelines and might affect that use. Zoning allows hotels, but there is a financial feasibility issue and height issue. Councilmember Stolzmann asked if there has been any interest with the current owners with any of these altematives Prosser stated there is some interest but they are interested in community input and more flexibility for some different altematives. Councilmember Maloney noted the current hotels are flattening in their taxes and asked if it is at saturation Prosser stated from their data, hotels are growing and contributing to the sales tax collection in the area. Hotel growth is cyclical and there is some renewed demand for hotels. Councilmember Loo asked if we have the population that is needed to make a marketplace type use work. Prosser stated there seems to be the community support for it, there is demand, but not sure about the density needed for a marketplace. These take a lot of risk. There needs to be an owner or developer passionate about this type of project. The City may need to incentivize such a use. Ms. Powell noted the owners have said they want predictability in the process. She added marketplace ideas are getting smaller and will likely need to be part of a larger environment. Powell reviewed the Community Support sections. • Alternative 1 — showed limited community support for additional big boxes, does not achieve desired pedestrian friendly, walkable environment; lacks local, unique retail environment and experiences. • Alternative 2 — entertainment and retail supported, limited support for big boxes, some community amenities can be added but remains auto -oriented, does not fully support desired environment. • Alternative 3 — meets desire for entertainment and experience based uses, major site design can incorporate desired community amenities and connections, supports a diverse range of uses. Councilmember Leh asked what the community support was for residential development in Parcel 0 Powell stated residential did come up in a mixed use setting, particularly