Agenda - Council - 11/12/2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Supplemental Report to City Council Agenda Item #5.03 Consider Adopting Ordinance #14-14 Amending Floor Area Ratio Requirements in the COR-1 Sub -District November 12, 2014 The Planning Commission met on November 6, 2014 to receive an update on Ordinance #14-14 as requested. The intent of this update was to receive additional visualizations to illustrate the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed change to minimum floor area ratio requirements from 0.75 to 0.65. At the heart of this policy discussion is whether the City should continue to require reduced surface parking allowances in preference to some form of structured (vertical) parking scenarios. The Planning Commission previously held the required Public Hearing and forwarded the Ordinance to the City Council on October 9, 2014. The Planning Commission moved on a 4-2 vote to move the Ordinance forward to City Council for introduction, but did request that the Planning Commission be able to review the Ordinance one additional time once the Ordinance was introduced by the City Council to review additional visuals. Preamble: The Planning Commission was meeting in an advisory role on November 6, 2014. Three (3) of the six (6) members were in attendance (Planning Commission currently has one vacancy). Feedback from the November 6, 2014 was not a quorum of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Request for Additional Information The direction requested from the November 6, 2014 Planning Commission was to postpone action on Ordinance #14-14 to provide the following: 1. Does the City Council support the visual/aesthetic implications that are an outcome this policy change (larger surface parking lots versus maximized development potential) 2. Additional Supporting Data a. Effect on Project Feasibility (Cash -Flowing or Cash -Negative) i. Cost estimates of a parking ramp specific to Ramsey's market area and the COR-1 Sub -District (i.e. Ramsey's existing ramp; new Anoka Parking Ramp) n. Should the City be more proactive in seeking grant funds to assist with construction of a shared parking facility? b. Effect on Eligibility of Funding Partners i. Existing funding provided based on current land use plan (is our land use plan still consistent with previous funding allocations?) ii. Does the amendment eliminate the City from potential future funding opportunities? c. Effect on household, population, and employment forecasts Additional Data Request: The three (3) Planning Commissioners in attendance expressed a desire for additional market and financial information in order to support any final decision on the Ordinance by the City and recommended that the City Council postpone action on the amendment until this information was gathered. While the Planning Commission did not express a majority opinion in opposition to the Ordinance on either October 9, 2014 or November 6, 2014, the Planning Commission has requested that the City Council review additional project pro -forma information before making a final decision. The Planning Commission has expressed a desire to demonstrate that the actual costs of a parking ramp within this development would result in a negative proiect pro -forma. Stated another way. the Planning Commission desires that the City demonstrate that the return on investment experienced by additional building size/number of residential units as a result of additional stalls available in a structure parking facility is not sufficient enough to create a positive cash -flow project pro -forma in Ramsey's market