My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 08 26
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 08 26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:32:45 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 3:26:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
8/26/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
2/3/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />August 26, 2021 <br />Page 2of6 <br />Ritchie noted that the item had been properly continued and therefore had sufficient <br />public notice. She gave updates to the application, which included changes to the <br />concurrency requirement and the fiscal analysis. <br />Diehl asked for clarification that Planner Ritchie had suggested that the high prices <br />would cover the $2 million difference in the long-term outlook and would generate <br />revenue to cover the loss. <br />Ritchie replied that part of model incorporated triggering additional costs and included <br />assumptions based on the magnitude of what was being modeled, which changed <br />outputs. <br />Howe asked if current commercial vacancy rates meant these projections would be <br />higher or lower. <br />Ritchie replied that the model did not give a picture of market feasibility and that it was <br />only updated every few years, with the last update in 2018. Changes since then <br />included the ability to capture sales tax revenues from online purchases. <br />Howe asked if this was assuming 100% tenancy. <br />Ritchie confirmed and stated that the model was conservative. <br />Howe estimated that the revenue would represent .2% of the City's budget and that it <br />was not a huge amount from a birds -eye view. <br />Ritchie replied that she would have to verify the amount but agreed that it was not an <br />amount that would make or break the City budget. <br />Moline asked what was left on the table in the General Development Plan (GDP) in <br />terms of dwelling units and square footage, seeing as this was the last piece of the total <br />Takoda GDP. <br />Ritchie replied that five neighborhoods were modeled representing some 500 units, and <br />what was not shown but was part of the GDP was Kestrel, which had its own <br />amendment. She did not believe there was any additional residential in the <br />neighborhoods, but within Kestrel another 12 units or so could be possible. <br />Moline asked if the initial GDP allowed for more development than was being realized in <br />this application. <br />Ritchie replied that the units had shifted but she did not think there had ever been more <br />than 76,000 square feet of commercial allotment. <br />Moline asked if other municipalities had had to revisit these kinds of things given the <br />current retail situation. <br />Ritchie replied that she imagined so but she did not have specific examples. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.