Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/2016

Home

Regular Planning Commission 5. 2. Meeting Date: 08/04/2016 Information Title: Review Findings of The COR Development Plan Policy Maker Survey and Discuss Future Steps Purpose/Background: The purpose of this case is to circle back on the July 12, 2016 discussion with the City Council regarding The COR Development Plan Study. Key desired outcomes from that discussion include the following: 1. Survey of Property Owners, Developers, and other market experts 2. Workshop of City Officials, Property Owners, Developers, and other market experts 3. Framework for Development Plan Amendment The original case begins below. The purpose of this case is to review findings from the recent COR Development Plan Policy Maker Survey. The intent of this survey was to review where those involved in land use policy decisions felt the master plan for The COR should be headed. Over several recent Land Use Applications, it became evident that there were different interpretations on what the current plan indicates and where different stakeholders felt the development should be headed. The survey concept was the result of a 2015 Joint Work Session between the City Council and Planning Commission. Staff will present a more refined presentation at the meeting highlighting key trends. Here is a potential list of key trends to consider: 1. Good Planning for Pedestrian Facilities. There is strong consensus that the City continues to do well on planning for adequate pedestrian facilities. 2. Good Architectural Design. Focus on good architectural design appears to continue to be a key goal. 3. Maintain Vision Area Surrounding Rail Station, With Tweaks. Vision for the downtown/station area (quarter -mile around the Northstar Station) should largely stay the same in terms of design. However, the mix between residential and commercial should be re-evaluated. 4. Evaluate the Vision for the Retail District. Vision of the north west retail area (Sunwood and Armstrong) should be re-evaluated. While there is not a full consensus on this policy direction, there are enough responses to warrant the discussion for future consideration. Responses were nearly 50/50 to change the vision for this area. Evaluating the vision does not necessarily mean a plan change will occur. 5. Maintain the Vision for the Office District. Vision for the south east office district should largely remain the same. 6. Maintain the Vision for the Community -Oriented User. The vision for a larger community -based user in The COR should be maintained. This could range from a community center to movie theater, etc. 7. Evaluate the Zeolite Retail Parcel. Disclaimer: this question was worded incorrectly. The intent of the question was to determine whether the City should consider a change from retail to residential based on actual developer interest and challenges as a retail pad side. This question will be reviewed, considered, and resolved throughout any potential amendment to the plan. However, as worded and based on a response, there appears to be a desire to retain the retail vision. Evaluation does not necessarily mean a plan change will occur. 8. Continue Discussion on Sign Regulations. There appears to be some hesitation in allowing 75 foot tall advertising signs (result of the grade -separated interchange), while also a showing of those that desire to allow for them. 9. Generally Maintain the Vision for Shared Parking Strategies. A majority of respondents indicated that we should retain the vision to require shared, potentially structured parking in the downtown district and