CBD - 2005 - 01_25COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL WORKSHOP 1/25/05
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ICBD)
KEN FULK'S COMMENTS.
1. Why remove sections from the CBD to SC, O and CF?
2. Is the VISION changing? Consider noisy activities being located next to high
density residential This should be controlled.
1 Be careful placing uses next to each other.
4. Setbacks and standards appear to be removed. We should have standards that can
be reduced by variance rather than setting standards too low
5. Six stories allowed everywhere. Maybe we should limit in certain areas.
6. Parking issues — 50%n partnership in City. Parking garages will be needed.
7 Architectural Review Committee —
Be careful, this is a good idea, but maybe the final decision should be with
boards/Council. Maybe it should be just architectural review, and not zoning or
site plan issues
Makeup of committee: Not the Planning Director of Chief Building Official;
should be stakeholders. Developer should not be active in CBD because of
conflict of interest.
8. Parking reduction appears to be an open door. The Belmont House expansion
resulted in parking problems.
Office/retail development would partner with City @ $2,000 per space. Would
this be escrowed and parking built later. What happens in the interim?
9 Landscaping issues —
Would like pictures and examples of base requirements and options.
10. Sidewalks —
12 feet on Allen Drive, Main Street, and Cedar Drive. 8 feet everywhere else.
We need pedestrian/sidewalk plan similar to Thoroughfare Plan. Couldn't 5 feet
work in some places such as W Main and the Bonham area?
11. Positive response to Historical Structure section. The Committee right need to
include someone from the Historical Guild.
12. Density at 32 units/acre. 32 is maximum for 6 stories and 800 square feet is set
for minimum unit size. Preference is for 4 stories rather than 6.
13. Is there anything that would allow someone to build new residential that looks
like old.
14. Incentives for preservation is historical structures is very positive
Pete Smith indicated that the City could abate up to 100% of the property tax if
historical designation is given by the City
MARK PACHECO'S COMMENTS.
1. Does not want to reduce the size of the CBD He would rather push it outward.
2. Uniform zoning should help development along US 75.
3. We are wasting our time until we find a way to pay for infrastructure
improvements in the CBD
4. Not concerned about 6 story buildings. More concerned about having something
happen.
5. VISION — we need to discuss this.
6. We need to determine funding for the area first
ROSS OBERMEYER'S COMMENTS
1 The product is good, but we are still attacking the same problems we have had.
We need a new VISION.
2. Could we take a smaller portion of the CBD and focus on that° The area is too
big now
SUSIE BARTLEMAY'S COMMENTS.
1. Went to TML workshop regarding downtowns, and feel we have followed the
appropriate process as discussed there.
2. Appears we're making options more feasible.
3. Need focus groups with developers that might be willing to fund the development.
4. Council and City need to determine what we are willing to invest in the CBD. It
nee3ds to be a public/private partnership.
5. The Plan that we have was put together by the people that were involved in the
area.
JEFF MC GREGOR'S COMMENTS.
DART right-of-way — parking is available in that area. We need to build parking.
2. We should partner with developers to come and give them some return on their
participation
3. Combine parking with the new library facility
MAYOR TERRELL'S COMMENTS
The CBD is going to be the last area to develop in Allen. If we want it to develop
today, we have to put money into it. We must build St. Mary Drive and we need
11 million. Will a TIF return this amount of money?
2. The CBD will develop when the City runs out of land unless we make it happen.
We need to decide which streets we want, we don't want, alleys we need, etc