Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 12, 2016 <br />Page 7 of 13 <br />Vasbinder, it makes me think of a related question. Since Etkin Johnson seems to be bringing <br />proposals forward in the last year, do you have a sense of how many vacant lots are left in the <br />CTC? <br />Vasbinder says it is dwindling. We currently have this lot and another opportunity that has a <br />rezoning application in at the corner of Highway 42 and 104th which will be a 100,000 SF <br />building. There are a couple lots left by Coherent Technology. We are then built out. We can <br />build one more building at 633 CTC which is a 150,000 SF building. We just broke ground on <br />2000 Taylor just to the east of Fenix. We have another 2.5 years of build out there. We have the <br />Hoyle property under contract to purchase which is 33 acres on Dillon Road. <br />Pritchard asks Liz Cox to point out where the surface mounted signs will be located? <br />Cox says one will be on the south elevation, one on the west elevation, and one on the east <br />elevation which faces the future new right -a -way. <br />Vasbinder says there have been variances granted for other signs, both surface and <br />monument. I can suggest that with the last six buildings we have presented, we have asked for <br />similar variances, particularly on the number of monument signs because of the connections <br />points and driveways as well as the increase in square footage and letter sizes for the building - <br />mounted signs. When Sean McCartney was with the City and was part of the discussion, we <br />continued the dialogue that we would look at the underlying signage guidelines under the <br />IDDSG. We could perhaps submit something for consideration by Planning Commission and <br />City Council to minimize the variance requests we continue to bring to you. We have had great <br />success in obtaining consideration from the PC. We have had good success with larger tenants <br />in our buildings which minimize the number of signs. It gives us flexibility in our spec buildings if <br />we go to multi -tenant. <br />Rice says this is the information I was looking for. It seems to me that signage is a recurrent <br />situation in the CTC. I don't find the request in this case to be unreasonable. If we are going to <br />be doing this through variance or waiver in every case, that doesn't make any sense. We ought <br />to be looking at a review of the sign code to bring it into a more realistic numbers. The history as <br />outlined is accurate as I recall it. We have had this discussion with Sean and Troy Russ. <br />Perhaps Jim Vasbinder has some suggestions. <br />Vasbinder says as a developer in the CTC, we would welcome the opportunity to help City Staff <br />garner the information needed to present to you. <br />Hsu asks Trice, if thera fut onlydard guideline not met is the setback, is <br />that correct? <br />Trice says the future road would trigger the otW'monument sign. <br />Pritchard says in regard to the signage issue, this has been an ongoing discussion. It is getting <br />the time and adequate budget to do so. If you look at past CTC building proposals, this is not <br />the first time this has been pointed out. There have been exceptions given over history. For City <br />Council, please have that ready because it will come into play. <br />Public Comment: None. <br />Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: <br />Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve 305 S Arthur Avenue Final PUD: <br />Resolution No. 12, Series 2016, with three conditions. <br />Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: <br />Hsu says I see no problems with this. It is a nice -looking building. My only concern is the future <br />road and setback, but that will be addressed when the road is build. <br />Moline says I am in support. From a broad overall CTC perspective, I am excited to hear about <br />the new road. The signalized intersections along 104th will be things that will help pull CTC even <br />more into the Louisville community. <br />Brauneis says I am in favor of the project. The only note I would have for Staff is the conditions <br />to work with the Parks Department and others. We have never had negative feedback from <br />