Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 14', 2019 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />vacancies in the area. In June, staff presented a study to the Commission that showed <br />the market changes brought on by e-commerce and competing developments, which <br />indicated that there was limited retail development potential. That zoning proposal had <br />requested open space, commercial, and residential. Zuccaro explained that Ascent <br />Church had Lot 2 under contract, which meant that it might not be necessary to go <br />ahead with the plan that staff presented in June. The current proposal supports <br />additional uses and allows for pad sites for entertainment, offices, and the like, which <br />required an increase in FAR. Zuccaro noted that any of those developments would have <br />to come through a PUD process. <br />Zuccaro described the main elements of the GDP Amendment: <br />• Add Indoor Commercial Amusement/Entertainment to Allowed Uses <br />• Increase Maximum FAR from .2 to .3 <br />Zuccaro described the fiscal analysis comparing full retail of existing buildings, which <br />had not been the situation for 10 years and was unlikely to occur again, and the <br />redevelopment scenario. He described the assumptions in that scenario. The analysis <br />showed that with the full retail, there would be a net positive of $24 million and with the <br />redevelopment scenario it would be a net positive of $5 million. <br />Zuccaro presented the fiscal analysis, which used full retail of existing buildings for <br />comparison to the redevelopment scenario. He noted that full retail in the existing <br />buildings had not been the situation for 10 years and was unlikely to occur again. <br />Zuccaro also described the traffic study. Staff recommended a condition that future <br />applicants provide a traffic study update or certification with any future PUDs and that <br />proposed development continues to comply with Fehr and Peers study from March <br />2019. <br />Staff recommends approval of Resolution 19, Series 2019. <br />Brauneis asked for conflicts of interest. Seeing none, he asked for questions of staff. <br />Rice asked about the indoor commercial amusement/entertainment use category. <br />Zuccaro replied that there was a definition for commercial amusement, which he would <br />look up. He noted that the commercial amusement use was in effect in other areas of <br />the city. <br />Moline asked what use the church would fall under, if it could be called an institutional <br />use, and how the Comprehensive Plan addressed institutional use. <br />Zuccaro replied that churches were specifically called out under allowed uses. He <br />added that the City wanted to supplement the list of commercial uses. <br />Howe asked how staff landed on the FAR recommendation. <br />Zuccaro replied that the FAR limited the amount of development on the property and the <br />design guidelines addressed height restrictions. A restaurant would likely be between <br />