Planning Commission Minutes 2015 03 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 12, 2015 Page 15 of 23 Russ says Staff agrees in terms of this product and its relation to the WoonerF. There are a number of good things coming out of the development such as parking and Cannon plat that are critical to the long term success of the redevelopment district in Downtown. Brauneis asks about the amount of parking, the waiver to go from a 20% landscape to a 10% landscape, and dropping the project from two stories to one stories. Why is the amount of parking needed or desired? McCartney says Staff had the same concerns when working with the applicant. They wished to move forward without modifying the site plan. Staff is bringing forth their request for the overall parking area. This project can develop over time which gives it more opportunity to add additional uses and additional square footage. Brauneis asks about saving the trees. Is the language strong enough? McCartney says Staff will work with the City Forester and Parks Project Manager to see what is currently out there, look at the proposed plan, and see if the trees along South Street and Short Street are close to being reused. Rice asks about Staff recommendation which states "The proposal submitted and waivers requested alone do not meet the City's criteria for investment." He asks for clarification. McCartney says it states "proposal submitted and waivers requested alone." Staff believes this property with the soon constructed South Street Gateway, the approved Highway 42 plan, and the recommended DELO mixed use could facilitate higher development intensity. Staff believes there is additional potential along with this. The development alone does not necessarily follow the intent, but the future opportunities do lend to that. Rice asks what are the criteria for investment we are talking about? Russ says they are the Mixed Used Guidelines. When we want someone to invest in our City, we want them to meet our standards. Rice says the second sentence in the paragraph is "Staff believes this property, ..... could facilitate higher development intensities with a more walkable environment." He clarifies that more could be built on this property. McCartney answers affirmative. Russell says the City requires a maximum street setback of 60 feet. Why would the City require that. McCartney answers that the idea was to bring the buildings as far forward as possible to lend pedestrian activity to the sidewalks. The site plan has two buildings along Highway 42 that lend some of that activity. Russell asks about minimum side setbacks of 10 feet. Why would we require those? McCartney says if the developer has a corner lot where the front might be Highway 42, it allows the building to be closer to the side street. Russ says the 60 feet is fronting Highway 42, an arterial road. This gives businesses some relief instead of a zero setback seen in most pedestrian environments. Russell asks about the two stories and 35 feet. What is the purpose of that? McCartney says the two stories are to promote the mixed use, such as living on top and working below. Russell says because we have these design guidelines, does this project advance that vision in any substantive way based on what we are being presented? McCartney says yes, with the site plan and intent. Probably two of the three just discussed do comply. Having only a single story does not lend itself to mixed use. Having additional parking allows for the possibility of it should the economy request it. Russ says the wants of mixed use versus the reality of economics, rezoning and marketing sometimes don't work well together. Russell says the market drives product and a mix of uses and scale. Does it drive site plan?