PC 010814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Posson stated that he views this as providing staff and the City Council more latitude in weighing those priorities. He indicated that he does not see this as being conflicting priorities because the City is not saying that it does not want parking and does not want to fund parking, but, rather, it provides greater latitude to where the City can balance those different priorities. Commissioner Ritter stated that, in response to Commissioner Allen's question and as a former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, what the City would like is to have more businesses because business - generated funds go to the parks. He noted that taxes from housing do not necessarily go for the parks; therefore, creating a vibrant Downtown would generate more business, and the money these businesses generate actually helps fund parks. He added that keeping business rolling also funds parks. Commissioner Allen stated that she would like to bring up a concern that she has talked to staff about and that she would appreciate some discussion on. She indicated that she believes the amendments, as written, need a little tidying with some additional criteria as there might be some unintended consequences. She stated that she can see developers submitting a lot of ideas to the City, and it could be on side streets, or it could be a 150 - square -foot area that might come close to meeting the criteria with a table or two and a little landscaping, and she is not sure the City wants those. She added that she thinks what the City wants strategically are a handful of plaza areas on Main Street. Commissioner Allen stated that she thinks the City may end up creating expectations because the criteria are not quite tight enough: people will submit proposals that will create work for staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council to review them; it may create hard feelings because the criteria are vague and people will ask why one proposal was approved and the other was not. She proposed that staff think about and add tighter criteria before this goes to the City Council, for example, (1) the plaza should be on Main Street; and (2) the plaza should be a certain size minimum, maybe about 350 square feet or 30 percent or 40 percent of the size of the Tully's plaza, rather than an area where there would be a couple of tables and a bench, maybe have a tree or two and a fountain where people can really sit, have coffee, chat, and then leave. She stated that the City should not want to fund tiny areas with a tree and a bench which are already built by developer. Commissioner Allen stated that another point she would also add, for internal and City Council discussion, is how much money worth of funding might be expected or budgeted for this amenity in a year: if it is half a million dollars for one, is the City looking at half a million dollars of fee waivers? She noted that judging from some of the letters, it appears that developers and business people are getting pretty excited about this, and she wants to make sure that the City does not get them overly excited and create more work and missed expectations. Chair Olson noted that there is a pretty tightly- defined area that this amendment applies to. He added that a developer who comes forward with a proposal would first sit with staff for review, staff has to be warm about it, and it ultimately has to go to and be approved by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 8, 2014 Page 10 of 13