Laserfiche WebLink
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Levine, Commissioners Bauer, VanScoy, Brauer, <br />Maul, and Nosan. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br />Chairperson Levine closed the public hearing closed at 8:30 p.m. <br />Commission Business <br />Commissioner Bauer recommended the Commission consider why the FAR was set at 0.75 <br />originally and how The COR-1 will be impacted if this number were to change. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill believed the original plan for this area was to <br />maximize density and the investment in transit, while reducing the need for surface parking. He <br />explained that staff's goal was to have 10 units per acre over the entire 322 acre development. <br />He believed that the City's density goals and reduced surface parking would be achieved even if <br />the FAR were slightly reduced. <br />Commissioner VanScoy believed the original intention for The COR-1 would be changed if the <br />FAR were amended. <br />Chairperson Levine stated it was hard to visualize how the project would look with only <br />preliminary site plans. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill commented staff could report back to the <br />Commission with more detailed plans. <br />Commissioner Brauer suggested that the plans include a 0.75 and 0.65 FAR. <br />Commissioner VanScoy questioned if the 0.65 FAR could be required until it was necessary to <br />have a 0.75 FAR. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill suggested the Commission move forward with a <br />contingent recommendation while staff worked to create better artistic renditions on the site <br />plans. He discussed how staff would continue to work to achieve the Commission's goals for <br />The COR-1. <br />Commissioner Nosan reported there was a need for market rate apartments in Ramsey. She <br />questioned why a ramp was necessary. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill stated this was a previous policy decision, which <br />required structured parking versus surface parking. If the density requirements were altered or <br />reduced, this would negate the need for shared structured parking. He further discussed the land <br />use goals for The COR-1 with the Commission. He asked if the Commission was comfortable <br />moving forward with the amended FAR, which would reduce the requirements for structured <br />parking. <br />Planning Commission/October 9, 2014 <br />Page 11 of 14 <br />