Planning Commission Minutes 2001 09 20

Home Browse Search

Phase II, to be completed between 2005 and 2010, would add 86,500 SF for a school, and 100,000 SF of commercial office. Phase III, which would be build out by 2020, would add 97,250 SF of commercial office, and 15,000 SF assisted living or childcare. The phasing reflects that at build out, a GDP would authorize a total of 392,000 SF of development with an FAR of .189. The church facility represents 22% of the GDP. th The application came to the Planning Commission on May 8 and after hearing testimony decided to continue the application to June. The Commission directed continuance with 8 conditions as outlined on page 4 of the September 11 Staff Report. th Since the May 8 meeting the applicant has worked on revisions to the GDP and concept plan. The revisions yielded two new documents: a ‘Parking and Area Calculations sheet’ and an ‘Illustrative Site Plan’. These documents should not be considered to be final development plan setting in place a vested site plan on which the owner can pull building permits. The conceptual documents reflect intent and scale only, and are not determined to be the equivalent or replace a PUD development plan. Staff notes there are discrepancies between documents in representing the FAR. The applicant has provided a table, ‘Average Daily Traffic Impacts’ which summarizes a great deal of the information in the traffic study relative to the three phases of development. Between the summary table and the document, there are numbers floating around which staff cannot account for on the summary table. The desire of the Staff would be not to debate numbers, but to try to justify the conclusions in the report. Staff has not received an applicant response, which reconciles discrepancies in legal descriptions raised at the May Planning Commission hearing. It is critical in this rezoning request that there exist one uniform legal description, which all other documents are reconciled to. If the rezoning is authorized by City Council, it will be approved as an ordinance to which the legal will be an exhibit. Wood stated that the Commission requested that a GDP agreement be drafted. The purpose of the agreement would specify development phases, timing of required public improvements internal to the site, who will assume those public improvement obligations, and how those obligations will be secured. Staff also feels that such an agreement is critical to disclose public improvement obligations required prior to the church there may be required off-site improvements related to street improvements, land dedication, and drainage required. Wood reported that the applicant has provided information related to phasing of the project but other important elements have not been worked out between staff and the applicant. The GDP does not show on-site stormwater detention. Stormwater detention is required but will need to be addressed at the PUD level. Staff reported that another area that required attention on the GDP is that of Open Space Dedication and how the applicant proposed to meet the required 12% open space dedication. Staff requested this on the GDP due to the importance of the open space dedication as a policy issue and a site planning constraint. The applicant has added a note to the GDP which states that the applicant seeks to meet their public use dedication through the conveyance of an on-site trail system. Staff does not support this trail system as an acceptable public use dedication. Staff reports that the applicant has submitted a set of architectural guidelines. It is the staff’s opinion that the document does not set a unified standard which is definable as related to a mixed-use proposal. The document is expected to set a threshold of design, justification for exceptions to building height, as well as 7