Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 06 23

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 12, 2016 Page 5 of 13 • Staff finds that the requested sign waivers have a minimal impact on building and site design and meet the spirit and intent of the development plan criteria and IDDSG. In addition, considering the dedication of the right-of-way, additional landscaping, and that the overall design of the building will exceed the requirements of the IDDSG, Staff supports the additional monument sign and reduced side -yard setback. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve 305 S Arthur Avenue Final PUD: Resolution No. 12, Series 2016, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall continue to work with Public Works Department on the items listed in the May 6, 2016 memo. Each item shall be completed prior to recordation. 2. The applicant shall continue to work with the Parks Department on the items listed in the April 29, 2016. 3. The applicant shall clarify the location of the proposed a mounted signs within the PUD application. Commission Questions of Staff. Moline asks Staff why either the CTC or the City is I' • to make a connection in this location. Is that an improvement the City will be re•, , . to do? I assume it is not something the applicant will be required to do. Trice says this is a great question for the applicant because they have been working on this connection within the CTC. The road design they have proposed and the alternative of the recommended design has been on the books for quite a while to connect S Arthur and 96th Street. As far as the full connectivity study, I defer to the applicant. Rice says in terms of the proceeding tonight, all we are doing is approving this plan that will include a dedication of that land. Actually, it will be deeded to the City. The point is it will be available down the line to build this road. When the road is discussed, will that be a separate proceeding? So tonight, this is making the provision for it, but we are not approving any road. Trice says yes, it will be separate. There is no final road design; this is getting half the road. Rice says the Staff report says they have spoken to the adjacent property owner regarding the completion of the road. What did the adjacent property owner have to say? Was there any strong objection voiced to this plan? Trice says there has been some discussion with the City, but it has not resulted in any outcome. As far as I know, they are still working on selling the property. I don't know about any strong objections. Aaron DeJong, Director of Economic Development, has been discussing it with them. Rice says the sign issues come up frequently in terms of applicants seeking waivers, both in terms of size and frequency. My view is there is no reason to not grant waivers as long as the rule of reason applies. We have a code that spells out what signs are supposed to be. I presume we should follow that unless there is a good reason otherwise. What is the good reason here? Trice says the signs will not be put in place until the road is constructed. In addition, this will be an office building and will have more foot traffic than a warehouse building. Having more signs would be appropriate. Rice says the change they are requesting is an additional monument sign than would otherwise be allowed. Is there precedent for that in the CTC? Do you know of any facilities that have requested and received a similar waiver? Trice says I am not aware of any that I have had experience working on. The distinction in the IDDSG is a multi -tenant building versus a single tenant building having the additional monument sign when they have an additional street frontage. It is a minor issue within the IDDSG for the sign. Rice says we are going from an 80 SF allowance on the signage on the building and increasing it to 120 SF, a 50% increase. A similar question is, is there precedent for that?