Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 13 of 30 Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Hsu says I understand there were some plans developed for this area. We should give some weight to that. I also understand, based on the facts, that since 1998, there has been no interest in a commercial building. We have waited long enough for it to develop. I can conceivably see some use for commercial for that business community there, but it seems we have waited a long time. I am concerned about the design part. I think I will vote for the resolution with some condition attached for the 100' setback or the CDDSG attached. Rice says I believe the request does meet the rezoning criteria on multiple counts. I think we are within our bounds to grant rezoning of this property. In terms of the nature of the petition, they are simply trying to rezone this property to be entirely consistent with what else is in that area. We are not trying to do something completely different from what is out there. I support the request. Tengler says for the same reasons Commissioner Rice just stated, I am also in support. Moline says I on the side of Staff on this. I am not compelled at all that the conditions have changed out there. I think this was put into effect to protect this view shed from Downtown looking off to the southeast. I think it was intended to protect the view shed of Highway 42. I don't think that the fronts of the buildings in the CTC are appropriate for this area. They are very appropriate for the middle of the CTC, but I strongly disagree that they are appropriate here on Highway 42. I don't think there will be a big opportunity for commercial and the idea that we will see a commercial development is uncertain. I am not support of giving up the CDDSG in this location. We have open space on the east and we have open space to the north. If we allow a rezoning to industrial here, that is a slight in the face to the Pearl Izumi building which is one of the best looking, amazing buildings in the City. To allow something that is more industrial on this corner makes you wonder what happened. Pritchard says I have been on the PC since 1998 and those items were never taken into consideration in terms of a view corridor. It was strictly to try to meet a need for the CTC; was there a way to capture some of that daytime population with businesses such as dry cleaning, gas stations, and convenience stores. It has been a long desired effort. In the case of Pearl lzumi, it was their personal philosophy to have a unique property. We could keep the current zoning forever and may have an underutilized parcel. The development this applicant has brought the CTC is where we are today. How do we soften the Highway 42 frontage? Do we encourage berming which would be useful to the applicant and to the City? I think the applicant has some very valid points in their email and memo. I agree with Commissioner Hsu that it would be nice to carry over some of the CDDSG but the applicant has made it clear that they do not believe they can meet those. We will have to make the call. I am comfortable with the applicant's request. I would prefer to see the property properly built by going on the experience and track record of the applicant. They will show respect to our community and show pride for their buildings. Moline says these are good points. The applicant has a stellar track record at CTC and is doing great things for our community. To me, this is an important gateway to the City. With this type of development, it is hard to do the detail I would like to see in a building in this location. Tengler says given the 600' long building, does that preclude the CDDSG to be applied. Robinson says yes. The CDDSG calls for breaking up Targe buildings instead of allowing a 600' long facade. It also calls for a variety of materials. It is the overall mass and length of the fa9ade. Tengler says what would the applicant have to do to the building to make the commercial minimum guidelines? Robinson says it would have to be broken up into at least two, possibly more, smaller buildings. The CDDSG says no facade should be longer than 50', but it doesn't have to be a separate building. The articulation should be more than 6", so it would be like separate buildings. Rice says they should be rezoned and allowed to build an industrial building and meet the IDDSG.