Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 06 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 6 of 18 determined it is acceptable. The drainage easement is shown running horizontally in the image above, along the existing property line separating the two existing Tots. The proposed connector addition conflicts with the easement. Public Works has analyzed the purpose and functionality of the drainage easement and determined that it is not necessary to retain it. The existing grading in the area between the buildings will be modified when the addition is constructed to ensure stormwater is properly accommodated on site. Final Plat • This plat proposes to consolidate Lot 2A and 3A into a single lot; Lot 1, The Business Center at CTC, Replat F Amended. In addition to this consolidation, the applicant will provide new perimeter utility easements on the northern and western property lines and new 4 -foot wide maintenance and access easements, requested by Public Works, along the southern property line and a portion of the eastern property line. The overall size, configuration and remaining easements will remain unchanged. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve 185 & 197 S. 104th Street, Resolution No.10, Series 2017 for the requested easement vacations, final plat, and final CTC Commercial PUD with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall make corrections to the drainage e- ent notation on the Final Plat in order to differentiate the original reception ber the reference to vacate by separate instrument. Commission Questions of Staff:: Rice asks about signs. The sign issue cis' es quently a + get the impression that we are ad hoc rule making. Every time we get a nak applic they want a variance/waiver from the sign requirements. I don't want to be in a pliption re deciding each case individually. We should be trying to hew along the codes we've created, unless there is justification otherwise. What is the best justification for granting a waiver from the sign code? Ritchie says Staff talked about this internally a he Staff is relatively neutral on this request. We intend to update our sign code and develop t standards. This request comes from the applicant who acknowledges that th. 15 aximum signage is on the smaller side if it is a single tenant building. Zuccaro says there is the issue of precedent, but that does not speak to the issue of what the criteria are. How would allowing this waiver create a better design? How is their enhanced design related to the waiver? We consistently have seen a request and approval for these larger signs, and it would be consistent. You could argue this is a better design because it would be consistent with design throughout the CTC. The businesses need additional visibility. These buildings are set back pretty far. The enhanced design elements will allow them to bump up. Ritchie says by comparison, the Commercial Development Design Standards allow 1 SF per every linear foot of building frontage. Rice says thinking longer term, we need to get to a position where the sign code is consistent with what is reasonable so we don't need a waiver request for virtually every application. We need to look at something that is realistic for these kinds of developments. Hsu says following up on signs, off of Hwy 42, there is a blue and gray building with a big sign. What is the square footage of that sign? Ritchie says I don't know the exact square footage of that sign; however, I do know they received a waiver for their wall signage size on their PUD. I reviewed the sign permit. Hsu says regarding the elimination of the lot lines separating the two Tots, do we have any procedures to consider this like a subdivision. Is there anything else that we, as Planning Commission, have to consider when removing a lot line? 8