Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />cross-parking and wanted to make sure that the Commission was aware that part of the <br />development there would be a reciprocal easement agreement that allowed cross-parking between <br />these lots and buildings. <br /> <br />Members of Public: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Commission Questions <br /> <br />Chairman Boulet is concerned with the fact that the Commission is being asked to figure out <br />which standards to apply to these buildings at this time. Boulet asked if they are willing to specify <br />the maximum percentage of the building that they can use for office or office-type uses that have <br />to be parked like an office in order to get in under the Industrial Guidelines. Mr. West is looking <br />for R&D uses, industrial uses, and warehouses. Chairman Boulet is also concerned with the <br />architectural treatment regardless of whether the industrial standards are being applied or not. <br />Boulet does not feel that the landscaping will be adequate to shield a 30-foot high building that is <br />tabletopped. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klahn informed the applicant that the Commission is not going to take on faith that <br />certain things are going to happen, and does not see that this project would meet the sort of <br />standards that are typically asked for. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton is concerned with the architecture because they are still seeing the same <br />type of CTC projects instead of something upscale as talked about previously by the applicant and <br />the developer. He would like to see something a lot more interesting and less massive. <br /> <br />Staff Summary: <br /> <br />Paul Wood stated that with regard to how the zoning ordinance, in Staff’s opinion, how it <br />identifies office relating to parking demand, there is no differentiation between research and <br />development office than professional office. With regard to the process that they are in, the note <br />on the PUD does not preclude the process from starting at preliminary if in fact the proposal does <br />not meet the criteria addressed in both the Subdivision Ordinance and the PUD Ordinance, which <br />specifies when you can fall into an expedited process. <br /> <br />Mr. Wood stated this project is in the preliminary process and that there is a 30-day timeline and <br />the Planning Commission is required to either approve, disapprove, or approve with <br />modifications. In the event that the Commission disapproves or approves with modification, the <br />applicant, within 15 days, may submit in writing to the Staff their desire to either come back to <br />the Commission or go directly to City Council. When there is a plat and a PUD they should be <br />processed together according to the ordinance and the City would not object at all to processing <br />an appeal for the applicant that included not just the replat, but both the Plat and the PUD to City <br /> <br /> 7 <br /> <br />