Laserfiche WebLink
10. Establish Architectural Review Committee. There appears to be a desire to re-establish <br />an Architectural Review Committee, so long as it does not slow down the review process. <br />11. Build Upon Existing Natural Resource Policies and Consider Additional Best <br />Management Practices. The City appears to be doing fairly well on protecting natural <br />resources, with some room for improvement and growth. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill stated the potential next steps are as follows: <br />1. Broader Citizen Engagement? A key discussion topic in developing this survey was <br />public involvement due to the high level of involvement in previous iterations of the plan. <br />The City did hold a public workshop to gather ideas; however, attendance was low and <br />feedback was minimal. While this feedback provided a lot of good information, the <br />format did not engage as many of the pubic as Staff desired. Staff would recommend <br />using remaining City events, such as Happy Days and The Draw Event Series, to provide <br />opportunities to submit ideas and review any potential amendments to the plan in addition <br />to standard processes. <br />2. Broader Stakeholder Engagement? Similar to above, Staff would like to engage property <br />owners impacted by the current plan and any potential amendments. Staff would like to <br />review the results of this survey with stakeholders for feedback. Staff would present a <br />simplified version of this survey for these stakeholders. <br />3. Direct the Planning Commission to develop a revised Development Plan for The COR. <br />This step only needs to be as in depth as needed. It is possible that amendments only need <br />to go so far to provide clarity that appears to be currently lacking in the plan. As noted <br />previously, Staff also desires to simplify design requirements to make the document <br />easier for all to navigate and comprehend. Plan Amendments would also be reviewed by <br />all City policy boards that participated in the survey. <br />Commission Business <br />Chairperson Levine asked if a parking lot could be turned into a parking structure in the future. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill stated there were several different approaches to <br />parking. He noted a surface lot could be pursued at first and this could go vertical if the need <br />were to arise. <br />Chairperson Levine questioned if there would be a large cost in building a parking structure. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill reported this was the case noting a surface stall cost <br />was $5,000 per stall, where underground parking was $30,000 per stall and vertical parking ramp <br />spaces were $20,000 per stall. <br />Planning Commission/August 4, 2016 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />