CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.142 1004.06 Community Mixed -Use (CMU) District 1143 As requested, Mr. Paschke explained the ordinance requirements related to this chapter and 1144 purpose of a "regulating map." 1145 Discussion included the rationale for a regulating map specific to this District that would be 1146 drawn up by staff and developers setting design standards and layouts for the entire District, when 1147 the District essentially consists of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment District and is minimally 1148 developed to -date. 1149 Mr. Paschke advised that the regulating map would replace the Planned Unit Development (PUD) 1150 design or concept for mixed use areas currently used; and that the rationale for promoting a map 1151 and associated text "a plan articulating exactly what is to happen on any given parcel in Twin 1152 Lakes would achieve a more cohesive overall development. Mr. Paschke clarified that it was 1153 unknown, at this time, who would actually development such a regulating map and text: whether 1154 staff, a developer, or done in phases by the City. 1155 Further discussion included the lack of previous exposure to the City of such a regulating map; 1156 guidance of the Comprehensive Plan for form -based development; impacts for developers for 1157 their parcel and those adjacent; with ultimate decision by the City at the recommendation of the 1158 Planning Commission for that District. 1159 Michael Lamb, The Cunningham Group Consultants 1160 Mr. Lamb, focusing on form -based or design -based approaches to land use, noted that this was a Afil61 more rigorous way to provide special attention to specific areas in the community, with the Twin W162 Lakes Redevelopment area the only District identified as Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. 1163 Lamb advised that this approach provided a more detailed or comprehensive/holistic approach, 1164 creating value, and recognizing that the sum of the individual parts is greater than one parcel 1165 and/or land use over a number of years and to ensure that the pieces are identified upfront and 1166 planned to reinforce the larger area. Mr. Lamb noted that this form -based approach defined and 1167 connected the public realm of an area, including all transit realms, not just one property owner, 1168 but in combination with the City, and cited the example of the Arona redevelopment. 1169 Discussion among staff, Mr. Lamb, and Commissioners included how this approach worked with 1170 one or multiple developers over a number of years; impact of political will applied and the 1171 community's vision identified through and in conjunction with its Comprehensive Plan, as well as 1172 providing real estate value and community value; stakeholders identified as a developer(s) and 1173 residents of the community itself. 1174 Additional discussion included proximity of the first developer to adjacent lots and the design 1175 concept that will set parameter with the City's blessing; the community side versus the 1176 developer /investment side of the larger composition; creation of a level of balance within the 1177 realm of design standards in place for mixed use; economic environment cycles; advantages of 1178 working from the same template for all parties; and recognizing that this is a flexible tool 1179 allowing the City to take the past -used Planned Unit Development (PUD) approach one step 1180 further.