Laserfiche WebLink
Acting Chairperson Bauer stated the proposed amendment originated from a proposed apartment <br />development not meeting the current .75 FAR. He questioned why the developer could not meet <br />the City's current FAR standards. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill indicated the previous purchase agreement between <br />the City and a developer was phased in order for the FAR to be met. He reported that as density <br />within the development increased, the land would not have enough surface parking. <br />Acting Chairperson Bauer noted the City established the FAR at .75 when it received the transit <br />center. He asked if the City would risk losing future funding if the FAR were adjusted. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill explained there was always this potential. He further <br />discussed future funding opportunities for The COR. <br />Acting Chairperson Bauer believed that CBRE had a conflict of interest in making a <br />recommendation to the City that the FAR be changed. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill appreciated this feedback. <br />Commissioner Brauer wanted to see a market analysis on how the adjusted FAR would impact <br />The COR development from CBRE. He was frustrated that the City has not received detailed <br />information from PSD, LLC. He did not want to see large parking lots in The COR. He <br />recommended that the entire vision for The COR be reevaluated. He discussed the history of the <br />Comprehensive Plan for the City. He questioned if the City's housing goals would be met if the <br />FAR were reduced to .65. He stated he did recommend the City amend the FAR from .75 to .65. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill understood development was envisioned to be <br />concentrated within The COR. He discussed how the forecasting for the 2040 Comprehensive <br />Plan would be completed when considering future development patterns. He stated staff would <br />remain proactive in this area with Metropolitan Council. He provided comment on the Minnesota <br />State University, Mankato study regarding parking ramp costs that was provided by PSD. <br />Commissioner Brauer indicated his wife taught at Mankato and he believed the project at the <br />school differed drastically from the type of development the City was proposing. He explained <br />the price per stall for parking would increase if a building was included. He recommended that <br />long-term maintenance costs also be considered when reviewing the price for surface parking <br />versus structured/ramp parking. He suggested that the visual impact also be considered by staff. <br />Commissioner Brauer believed that the economics, Metropolitan Council concerns, the visual <br />impact of a ramp versus parking lot in the downtown area, and how a ramp would be paid for all <br />needed to be further addressed. It was his opinion that the City needed to develop a strategy to <br />address each of these matters. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill thanked the Commission for their input on this topic. <br />Planning Commission/November 6, 2014 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />