2023-05-02 P & Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The prospective developer would like to reach an understanding with the city on a path forward by arriving at a mutually agreeable building location. The next step for them is to have their engineer and architect fully develop a building and site plan schematic. The placement of the building is essential to both. While the developer is open to either location, their preference is for Option A (building in the rear). They feel this option gives them the most flexibility for future expansion and offers the safest, most convenient layout for their customers. They have also expressed concern with the cost of relocating power lines to accommodate Option B. Given the small scale of this development, it is likely they would not be able to absorb this unanticipated expense. The City Council and Planning Commission should weigh in on the two options, considering the practical elements of each and their alignment with the vision for downtown. Possible conclusions might be: Option A Î The city finds that the logistical issues and cost implications of a building- forward design necessitate Option AÓs placement of the structure towards the rear of the site. While the aesthetic of this option may not directly align with the vision outlined in the Downtown Master Plan, if architectural considerations can be made to maximize adherence to other elements of the plan, the overall impact of the project can still advance the progress towards a revitalized downtown. Additionally, landscaping and other site design elements should be considered to offset the site layout, by emphasizing the streetscape and other placemaking opportunities. Option B Î The city finds that Option B best aligns with the cityÓs Downtown Master Plan and will best position us to attract similar style developments on adjacent blocks in the future. Given the importance of this development as the first to implement the Master PlanÓs design guidelines, the city is willing to be a partner and explore options for removal of the power lines as a public expense. In an effort to give the developer timely feedback, staff has placed this item on this weekÓs work session agenda for discussion. However, we would typically request input from the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission first. Therefore, we have also placed it on the May 2, agenda for the P&Z Commission to consider. If the developer requires a binding commitment from the city for removal of the power lines, it may be appropriate for the item to be placed on the May 10 City Council meeting for formal action.