Laserfiche WebLink
Community Development Director Gladhill asked if there is any openness to partner with <br /> developing properties to create structured parking, whether that be grant funds or TIF dollars. <br /> He asked if there is a desire to continue that discussion. <br /> Economic Dev. Mgr./Assistant City Administrator Brama stated that this is a high-level policy <br /> land use plan, which is an interim plan. He noted that the next step will be a more detailed <br /> planning exercise, and will include a parking discussion that will have more details on costs. He <br /> confirmed that in this market there would need to be a cost-share between private and public to <br /> develop structured parking. <br /> Chairperson Steffen stated that he would not say no to the concept. He noted that he would be <br /> willing to continue discussions, but does not want structured parking to be a requirement for <br /> developers. <br /> Member Skaff stated that he would also be open to the concept but would not want to see <br /> structured parking become a requirement in a planning document, for developers. <br /> Member Riley asked for more details on the floor area ratio. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill provided the definition of floor area ratio, noting the <br /> higher the floor area ratio, the denser the parking would need to be. He noted that the ratio had <br /> been decreased in order to respond to the market. He stated that a few years ago the Council <br /> then made the decision to encourage shared and structured parking but not require that element <br /> and decreased the floor area ratio to .65. He confirmed that the Planning Commission did <br /> support reverting back to the ratio of.75. He noted that the EDA comments would be added to <br /> that item, noting that while the EDA would be open to encouraging shared/structured parking, <br /> they would not want to require the element and do not support the change in floor area ratio from <br /> .65 to .75. He asked for broad thoughts on architecture and whether the City is on track, <br /> providing examples of recent development, and whether the architecture is meeting the <br /> expectations of the EDA. <br /> Chairperson Steffen stated that there were one or two developments that did not meet his <br /> architectural expectations. He asked which examples the Planning Commission had. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill provided examples of architectural elements that the <br /> Planning Commission felt perhaps did not meet their expectations, noting that often it was color <br /> related. <br /> Chairperson Steffen asked if the guidelines have changed in the past two years. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill stated that there have not been changes in the last <br /> two years but there was a significant amendment prior to that. He stated that staff's approach is <br /> to add more details to make things more specific. He stated that the design document is currently <br /> very lengthy and staff is attempting to simply that while still providing the necessary definition. <br /> He stated that The COR is very unique and because the density was going to be higher,the desire <br /> Economic Development Authority/May 25,2017 <br /> Page4of7 <br />