pm_030508 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 05, 2008 Page 5 seeking public assistance through tax increment financing (TIF). Mr. Grefenberg further opined that, while he was impressed with staff’s thorough review of the applicant’s proposal, the alternative professional office building could be more easily adopted to the site. Mr. Grefenberg questioned if parking structures, or seeking higher density office users, were the best use of this prime property and lake vista. Mr. Grefenberg recognized that the proposal was conceptual at this point and that a landscaping plan had yet to be developed and negotiated, but opined that park users should be screened from the parking ramps, and that the perspective of the park users should be considered. Mr. Grefenberg asked that, as the project proceeded, that substantial landscape details included screening and that more strict adherence to the urban design principles be applied. While not speaking directly in opposition to the proposal, Mr. Grefenberg further opined that perhaps more patience was appropriate given the value of this land, more care and persistence to the archived and broader urban design principles and value of this specific park continue to be exercised by staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Grefenberg spoke in appreciation of the sidewalk and trail connections throughout the project to the lake, opining that if the developer received public assistance for the project, as indicated, the taxpayers and public policy makers, had a right to insist on attempts to achieve urban design principles as adopted. Mr. Paschke responded that no matter how much landscaping was applied, it would be difficult to screen the structures from the park; and questioned any provisions of City Code or City policies that would dictate such a condition. Mr. Paschke advised that all attempts would be made to enhance or mitigate impacts and create aesthetics to make the redevelopment part of the community, and part of the park. However, Mr. Paschke noted the definite line separating private developable land from park land, and the need to balance that with urban design principles. Mr. Paschke clarified that the design principles were meant to serve as overarching themes, and didn’t anticipate that any one project would meet all of the principles, but that based on their location, certain themes could be achieved with specific projects to be incorporated into the overall project, while respecting the best interests of the City from that broad perspective. Mr. Paschke concurred that a detailed landscape plan was not part of this step in the process, and that the project would continue to be refined and goals achieved as the process unfolded. Mr. Paschke further clarified that the Planning Commission was charged with the land use perspective, and that the City Council would have to identify the public participation framework plan, with Mr. Grefenberg’s comments duly noted for the record, specific to public financing and criteria in achieving urban design principles. Commissioner Wozniak questioned if the City Council had considered TIF conditioned on whether a proposal met LEED Certification standards; and suggested that the City Council consider such a design standard for TIF-supported projects. Mr. Paschke noted that the urban design principles spoke toward designing toward LEED principles, but not specific to LEED certification; and indicated that it may be a policy discussion on the City Council level for TIF. Chair Bakeman noted that TIF was usually designated for infrastructure construction or remediation of related issues, and may not be an applicable discussion for LEED Certification. Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing. MOTION Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the REZONING and proposed GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) by McGough Development for the twenty-six (26) acre PIK Terminal parcel within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area, based on the comments and analysis of Sections 6 – 9, and the conditions of Section 10 of the Project Report dated March 5, 2008; and incorporation, by reference, of revised staff recommendations as detailed in a bench handout distributed at the meeting, clarifying Sections 9.20 and 11.2 of the Request for Planning Commission, attached hereto and made a part thereof; with the recommended action amended as follows: