12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the City has a guideline for what is feasible and what would be required from a developer to make a project feasible. Mr. Dolan replied that the guidance is not that specific and that ultimately, the test is whether or not the developers will do it. He stated that staff is specifically going through an exercise of looking at pro formas to get more dialogue that is as fact-based as it can be; however, this is not available for review because of a timing issue and the Commission will not be involved in that dialogue. He noted that it will come into play closer to the point of getting a project application and added that the reality is that if an application is being considered five years from now, the feasibility discussion will be completely different than if it is received in three months. Commissioner Blank stated that he assumes there are some industry standards to determine what is economically feasible. Mr. Dolan said yes. He added that a team of staff and consultants is reviewing this, including Will Fleissig, who is a developer and would have that perspective when he looks at it. Commissioner Blank inquired what the City's situation would be legally if a developer says staff has approved something the developer just cannot build, and the developer leaves. Mr. Dolan replied that he does not believe this would happen but that staff might have to discuss it with the judge. He indicated that, given the relationship between the developers and the City's Planning Division, he thinks that together they will be able to work through the issues. He added that there has been enough dialogue along the way and there are some on-going concerns, but none that he believes cannot be overcome. Commissioner Blank noted that this would be a fine balancing act between the judge's directive and the developers' economic standing. Mr. Dolan agreed. • Provision of group open space versus a public park. Task Force members initially wanted a public park but after going through the process, various discussions, and presentations, members expressed more interest in adequate open space within the development that would be private and only for the residents. A group of members still expressed interest in including an open space that would be attractive to others in the community, likely those using the trail system; for example, an open space ending in Parcel 2 may be used by residents of Parcel 1 or Parcel 3. Some of the language was changed so credit could be achieved for private open space through the provision of a public park. It gives the developer the option to provide a public park in lieu of a private park. The policy decision for the Commission to recommend for Council decision is whether or not to incentivize that choice more or take it further and outright EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 8 of 40