Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 12 of 30 service buildings. We cannot do four-sided architecture; it is not possible. We have docks, we have service doors, and we have access points where we need to provide locations for tenant equipment whether it is processing equipment, cooling equipment, etc. We cannot satisfy the four-sided architecture that commercial requires. Commercial also has different criteria as it relates to the building proper such as stepping the facades differently than we have on our buildings. I'd like to point out that we have a 1,000,000 SF at CTC including with the building currently under construction. We pride ourselves on the buildings we develop with the City's help and input and approval. We don't think those buildings detract from what we've created at CTC. We can't satisfy the criteria with these big buildings if we use the CDDSG. Hsu says the Pearl Izumi and the Lockheed buildings are built in the commercial zone and follow the CDDSG. When you solicit tenants for buildings or buyers of property, that type of use has also been marketed along with retail. Is that correct? You've had no interest in building an office building in that area. If we rezone it as industrial and you state you can't build four-sided architecture, is it possible to have the north side facing Highway 42 to be at a higher standard? The concern is that the frontage would look consistent with Pearl Izumi. Vasbinder says you are suggesting that the buildings already developed at CTC don't look good on the front. Hsu says there are certain guidelines for industrial and certain guidelines for commercial. Can you satisfy the commercial guidelines on the north wall? Vasbinder says one elevation of our buildings can be are 600' long. We cannot build that in the commercial guidelines. Rice says I am intrigued by your comments about the recorded document. What do you claim the zoning is on this property? Vasbinder says in 1998, we created this as commercial. Rice says you agree that it is zoned commercial. Robinson gave us a presentation on Code Section 17.44.050 which is essentially the four rezoning criteria under which we can grant a rezoning. Which of the four do you claim that your petition satisfies? Vasbinder says I think there are two. I agree with Robinson's analysis. Tengler says, from memory, as I drive up Highway 42, I don't see much of Lockheed or Pearl Izumi. When I'm out on a dog walk across the street and walking down the hill toward the underpass, I see a lot of it. As you get closer to where this property is, are we still on an incline or it is relatively flat? Vasbinder says once you get past Pearl Izumi, the property starts to level out. From 104th Street to Highway 287, it drops and is flat. Tengler says with the 55' easement, it strikes me that there is an opportunity to do some pretty high berming and landscaping that would effectively buffer any industrial design. It seems more of an issue when you are walking and taking advantage of the open space than if you are driving by. Vasbinder says I agree with you. The IDDSG have a setback of 30'. With the conceptual design I am providing you, we have a setback of 100' to the building. We will utilize that easement area, particularly along Highway 42/Empire Road for exactly what you mentioned, landscaping and berming. We cannot "hide" the building but we can soften it. Hsu says would you be amendable that if we accept the resolution to put the 100' setback as a condition to rezoning. Vasbinder says yes. Public Comment: None. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff says this is a close call between whether it meets one of these two criteria. In Staff's analysis, we felt it didn't meet them. I think there is room in the criteria to find that they have been met. Staff recommends denial.