Planning Commission Minutes 2015 05 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 19 Principle 6 — Establish development regulations to meet the fiscal and economic goals of the City. a) Does the proposed plan demonstrate long-term, strong economic benefits for the corridor? i) Are allowed uses complimentary and will they reinforce each other? ii) Are allowed uses supported by the market and likely to locate in the corridor? b) Does the proposed plan demonstrate strong positive fiscal returns to the City? i) Will the timing of development maintain sufficiently strong returns at all times? ii) Are alternative funding or taxing schemes required to meet the City's other goals for the corridor? Pritchard says all Commissioners present tonight were present at the April 23 meeting except Moline who submitted comments via email to Staff regarding the other five Principles. Pritchard says the Planning Commission (PC) asked Staff to write a Principle 6. Pritchard asks Moline if he has any questions since he was absent from the last meeting. Moline asks do we feel the measurements are going to be easy enough for the PC to gauge the success of the various plans? Should they be more specific or tied to specific performance standards, or left as is? Will we find a way to distinguish the plans and to determine how well the plans are meeting this Principle? Russ says it is a balance. Do we have specific enough questions to give the PC and City Council (CC) enough information to make a decision? Staff thinks it is a balance. Staff thinks Principle 6 will provide specific information for the fiscal model that will inform greatly. There will be subjectivity in all Measures of Success. No Principle will necessarily outweigh another. Russell asks about the Constraints. The second bullet in Constraints says "Traffic making the corridor unpleasant for visitors." If speeds are a symptom of a problem which is the design of McCaslin, even if traffic is slowed down, it is a wide corridor to cross. It is a challenging space in and of itself. Is the Constraint the design of McCaslin itself which makes the corridor unpleasant for non -vehicular visitors? Russ says the speed is directly related to the geometrics of the road. It can speed you up or slow you down. Russell proposes the Constraint be rephrased to "the design of McCaslin Blvd makes the corridor unpleasant for bicyclists and pedestrians". Brauneis says he has no problem pointing out the fact that it is traffic speeds. In the future, who doesn't appreciate the direct correlation between geometry and traffic speeds? The specific mention of traffic speed is important. If you can weave geometry into it, I have no problem with that. Rice suggests wording of "roadway design and accompanying traffic speeds make the corridor unpleasant for visitors." I want to speak about Principle 6 since I brought it up at the last meeting and Russell suggested making it a separate Principle. Staff knows how important this part is to me. I read the Principle 6 wording and the Principle and subtitles of a) and b) are what I wrote, and the subparagraphs i) and ii) were written by Staff. I think they are good points. I support Principle 6 as it is drafted.