Planning Commission Minutes 2019 11 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 14', 2019 Page 3 of 6 2,000 and 3,000 square feet and a drug store would be about 15,000 square feet, both of which were likely types of developments. Howe asked if FAR limited height. Zuccaro replied that the FAR did not limit height at all. If they came in with a lot of restaurants, there would be more parking demand for that, so they might be able to negotiate parking and height based on use. They could go up to 35 feet with two stories or a very shallow three stories. Zuccaro noted that staff was also working on the design guidelines. Hoefner asked how the FAR went from .5 to .2 in the past. Zuccaro replied that he did not know, but there had been limitations based on highway capacity and FAR probably played into an overall development cap. Once US 36 turned into more lanes, the City could lift the cap. Hoefner asked if we should be considering going back to .5. Zuccaro replied that .3 was the right place to be, given the nature of development in the area, and that even .3 could be hard to reach. Brauneis asked about the three scenarios presented in June and the corresponding net fiscal impacts. He noted that the goal was to preserve the tax base, which this was not accomplishing. Zuccaro replied that additional FAR would allow for additional development within the periphery of the lots, which could help revitalize the area and bring investment, possibly bringing in sales tax. The baseline against which the impact was being measured was the current state of re -tenanting and vacancy. Zuccaro described it as a net gain. Brauneis asked about the previous fiscal model from June. Zuccaro replied that it was the same economic model, but with different factors. For example, the proposed scenario included the 60,000 square -foot non-profit among its existing buildings, which the previous iteration had not accounted for. The EPS fiscal analysis also included all development on all lots in Parcel O and not just Lots 1 and 2. He explained that the model was a snapshot in time based on a lot of assumptions and the impact over 10 years could vary widely. He restated the goal of the amendment, to include more uses in the area that would help redevelop the area. Brauneis wondered about the shelf life of these retail models. The increased FAR might provide a short-term boost, but he asked what the long-term impact would be. Zuccaro replied that the proposal in June had tried to take a longer view, but the new proposal took into account what the property owners intend to develop. Brauneis noted that the previous model delivered a lot more with small town values and the tax generation potential.