CC_Minutes_2008_0317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

155 received public assistance for the project, as indicated, the taxpayers and public policy makers, 156 had a right to insist on attempts to achieve urban design principles as adopted. 157 Mr. Paschke responded that no matter how much landscaping was applied, it would be difficult to 15g screen the structures from the park; and questioned any provisions of City Code or City policies 15c, that would dictate such a condition. Mr. Paschke advised that all attempts would be made to 160 enhance or mitigate impacts and create aesthetics to make the redevelopment part of the 151 community, and part of the park. However, Mr. Paschke noted the definite line separating private 162 developable land from park land, and the need to balance that with urban design principles. Mr. 163 Paschke clarified that the design principles were meant to serve as overarching themes, and 16a didn't anticipate that any one project would meet all of the principles, but that based on their 165 location, certain themes could be achieved with specific projects to be incorporated into the 166 overall project, while respecting the best interests of the City from that broad perspective. Mr. 167 Paschke concurred that a detailed landscape plan was not part of this step in the process, and 163 that the project would continue to be refined and goals achieved as the process unfolded. 16g Mr. Paschke further clarified that the Planning Commission was charged with the land use 17c~ .perspective, and that the City Council would have to identify the public participation framework 17 ~ plan, with Mr. Grefenberg's comments duly noted for the record, specific to public financing and 172 criteria in achieving urban design principles. 173 Commissioner Wozniak questioned if the City Council had considered TIF conditioned on 174 whether a proposal met LEED Certification standards; and suggested that the City Council 175 consider such a design standard for TIF-supported projects. 176 Mr. Paschke noted that the urban design principles spoke toward designing toward LEED 177 principles, but not specific to LEED certification; and indicated that it may be a policy discussion 17f3 on the City Council level for TIF. 179 Chair Bakeman noted that TIF was usually designated for infrastructure construction or 130 remediation of related issues, and may not be an applicable discussion for LEED Certification. 181 Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing. 132 MOTION 133 Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of 13q the REZONING and proposed GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 135 by McGough Development for the twenty-six (26) acre PIK Terminal parcel within the Twin 136 Lakes Redevelopment area, based on the comments and analysis of Sections 6 - 9, and 137 the conditions of Section 10 of the Project Report dated March 5, 2008; and incorporation, 133 by reference, of revised staff recommendations as detailed in a bench handout distributed 13g at the meeting, clarifying Sections 9.20 and 11.2 of the Request for Planning Commission, 1 g0 attached hereto and made a Dart thereof; with the recommended action amended as 191 follows: 1 g2 The Planning Commission strongly supports green design and working toward LEED 193 Certification for any projects such as this that may request tax increment financing 1 gq (TIF) dollars; 1g5 The Planning Commission supports the use of TIF for remediation of any 1 g~ environmental contamination related to this project; 1 g7 • The Planning Commission strongly supports the consideration of transit options and 1 gg opportunities within the site with an aim toward reducing required parking 1 gg structures/stalls. 200 Ayes: 5 201 Nays: 0 202 Motion carried. 203 Chair Bakeman advised that the Case was scheduled to be heard by the City Council at their 204 March 17, 2008 meeting.