Planning Commission Minutes 2019 02 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 14, 2019 Page 9 of 17 Howe asked what would happen if the applicant got 30% tenancy for Building F and therefore be allowed to finish the fourth residential building, but that did not mean they had to finish construction or find tenants for Building F. Zuccaro replied that they would have to begin construction and identify tenants for 30% of the building and the foundation in order to get the CO for the last building. Staff thought that showed financial investment in the building itself and a good faith effort to have tenants. They had to fulfill both those requirements before getting the CO for the fourth residential building. Howe clarified that there was still no guarantee that Building F be finished. Zuccaro replied that technically the way it was written, in a worst -case scenario Building F could not be built. Howe asked if it was safe to assume that the revenue to the City is less than in scenario 3 in the model. Zuccaro replied that he hadn't modeled that scenario. If the applicant built 24 units instead of 32, it would come out as a wash to the City from a modeling standpoint. Brauneis asked for additional questions of the applicant or staff. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and opened commissioner discussion. Rice stated that the staff memo quoted from the 2016 memo to Council read, "Staff believes it is important to require the application to construct the commercial structures concurrent with the residential development... Planning Commission endorsed the amendment as they are concerned with the long-term reduction of commercially zoned property." Rice noted that the Commission at that time had been worried that commercial property would be converted to residential property. This happened to other projects at the time. The ramifications of replacing commercial with residential included not adding to the tax base or to commerce. Rice proposed keeping the concurrent condition the same as it was originally, except instead of referring to both commercial buildings, limit the requirement to the Foundry. He thought the idea of triggering COs and having partially completed residential areas was overly complicated and ambiguous. He thought his solution was in line with the applicant's desires, as well. Concurrent should mean to develop the Foundry at the same time as the residential elements. He did not think the language was ambiguous. Ritchie read the language of the original resolution: "Residential and commercial development shall be constructed concurrently." Zuccaro noted that if they used that language, they should define concurrent. Hoefner agreed that they should define concurrently. Howe read the definition of concurrent from Merriam-Webster's dictionary as "at the same time."