Agenda - Economic Development Authority - 06/08/2017

Home

Community Development Director Gladhill asked if there is any openness to partner with developing properties to create structured parking, whether that be grant funds or TIF dollars. He asked if there is a desire to continue that discussion. Economic Dev. Mgr./Assistant City Administrator Brama stated that this is a high-level policy land use plan, which is an interim plan. He noted that the next step will be a more detailed planning exercise, and will include a parking discussion that will have more details on costs. He confirmed that in this market there would need to be a cost -share between private and public to develop structured parking. Chairperson Steffen stated that he would not say no to the concept. He noted that he would be willing to continue discussions, but does not want structured parking to be a requirement for developers. Member Skaff stated that he would also be open to the concept but would not want to see structured parking become a requirement in a planning document, for developers. Member Riley asked for more details on the floor area ratio. Community Development Director Gladhill provided the definition of floor area ratio, noting the higher the floor area ratio, the denser the parking would need to be. He noted that the ratio had been decreased in order to respond to the market. He stated that a few years ago the Council then made the decision to encourage shared and structured parking but not require that element and decreased the floor area ratio to .65. He confirmed that the Planning Commission did support reverting back to the ratio of .75. He noted that the EDA comments would be added to that item, noting that while the EDA would be open to encouraging shared/structured parking, they would not want to require the element and do not support the change in floor area ratio from .65 to .75. He asked for broad thoughts on architecture and whether the City is on track, providing examples of recent development, and whether the architecture is meeting the expectations of the EDA. Chairperson Steffen stated that there were one or two developments that did not meet his architectural expectations. He asked which examples the Planning Commission had. Community Development Director Gladhill provided examples of architectural elements that the Planning Commission felt perhaps did not meet their expectations, noting that often it was color related. Chairperson Steffen asked if the guidelines have changed in the past two years. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that there have not been changes in the last two years but there was a significant amendment prior to that. He stated that staff's approach is to add more details to make things more specific. He stated that the design document is currently very lengthy and staff is attempting to simply that while still providing the necessary definition. He stated that The COR is very unique and because the density was going to be higher, the desire Economic Development Authority/May 25, 2017 Page 4 of 7