Laserfiche WebLink
Mr Pankratz stated in COR-1, structured parking is a huge cost. He explained that the per stall <br />cost for surface parking is $3,000 to $6,000, for structured parking it is $13,000 to $17,000, and <br />for underground parking it is more than $20,000. He stated the rent that has to be achieved with <br />structured or underground parking is substantial and in some communities, like Ramsey, <br />communities have to subsidize the project to have structured parking. <br />Councilmember Kuzma stated with the proposed ordinance amendment, he would ask if adopted, <br />will it help bring more development to The COR. <br />Mr. Pankratz stated he definitely hopes so noting that a medical or office use may be options as it <br />will be less demanding if the .65 FAR is approved. In addition, it shows the City of Ramsey is <br />pro -development and willing to work with developers. <br />Councilmember Kuzma recognized the Planning Commission for taking a hard look at this <br />amendment and passing on that information. He stated it seems to him that the original Ramsey <br />Town Center plan was aggressive with density and it does not make sense to require structured <br />parking in this market. He stated there are not many developers coming forward so he supports <br />making a modification to move the project forward. <br />Councilmember Riley agreed no other developers have stepped forward and suggested the market <br />study has been going on for the last eight to ten years with no one coming forward to purchase <br />land that requires structured parking. He agreed with the importance of looking at the entire area <br />and listening to what the market is saying. Councilmember Riley also agreed that the current <br />market will not support structured parking without public subsidy, which he does not support. He <br />stated perception has been discussed and he thinks this amendment shows the City is willing to <br />listen and yield to what the market is saying but if not amended, gives the perception the City is <br />rule driven and not flexible. <br />Councilmember Backous stated he thinks the market will change with the overpass and then the <br />City will not have to subsidize anything. He stated that change in market conditions is close and <br />he does not want the City to make a deal based on urgency. Rather, he prefers to review everything <br />and wait to see what the overpass does to the market. Councilmember Backous stated he has <br />nothing against the project but wants to hear from the Planning Commission and it did not have a <br />quorum at the last meeting. He stated for those reasons, he will oppose the ordinance amendment. <br />Councilmember Johns stated she is not interested in viewing a 'sea of parking lots' but the <br />amendment will address the viewshed and the Council can take that action as projects come <br />forward. She noted the City already has a luxury offering in The Residence as well as market -rate <br />housing and this project will offer a mid -range alternative. She supported the City also providing <br />for that price point. Councilmember Johns thanked the Planning Commission for its work to bring <br />forward their questions and considerations but she found the choice to be a subsidy situation or to <br />tweak the ordinance to make the property marketable. She stated she would support the ordinance <br />amendment to reduce the FAR. <br />