Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 03 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2012 Page 8 of 14 Russ stated this development is similar to a pedestrian oriented development, as seen downtown, and staff used guidelines established in this document to negotiate design. Tengler inquired why staff was waiting until final to address the shadow affects on the condominiums to the north. Russ stated the Final submittal considers architectural articulation – the preliminary does not. He added there was only a small portion of the condominium which is affected and staff believes this won’t be difficult to correct. Tengler asked what the tax receipts have been for the other adjacent commercial uses since Safeway left. Star stated the tax data is not specific to such a small retail area. Tengler inquired if the economic impact has reduced the value of the adjacent retail properties. Star stated the owners are here to answer the question of depressed value. Russell asked staff which 3 big boxes are currently vacant. He asked to include their square footage. Star stated the 3 vacant sites are: Sam’s Club – 128,000 square feet Big Lots – 30,000 square feet Safeway – 50,000 square feet Lipton inquired why the parking management plan is not required until final. Russ stated the current parking numbers work so a parking management plan, for the adjacent parking lot, will not be completed until final submittal. Lipton inquired why it isn’t done at preliminary submittal. Russ stated because the parking numbers work which is all a preliminary requires. Lipton inquired about shared parking. Russ stated shared parking will be a part of the parking management plan included in the final submittal. Lipton asked if the adjacent property owners will cooperate. Russ stated the applicant cannot rely on the adjacent property to make the numbers work. Moline asked for a clarification of parking in the middle garage and the need to walk further then if parked in the adjacent lot. Russ stated it is not a technical criterion of the project but an applicant risk for the project. Moline asked if the City is concerned with the overflow parking on to the adjacent lot. Russ replied the City is concerned however the problem is for the applicant to address.