Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2008 01 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2007 Page 6 of 10 • The project will require the consolidation of Lots 1 and 2 and a Covenant Agreement will be required to consolidate the properties. • The building design is subject to the Industrial Development and Design Standards and Guidelines (IDDSG). • The Site Plan, including building setbacks and the design of the parking and vehicular circulation are in compliance with the IDDSG. • The development is designed to allow for two access points, where three access points would be permitted. Both access points come off of CTC Boulevard. • Parking is proposed at a ratio of 2 spaces per 1,000 SF. The site has been designed to yield a parking ratio of 3.8 spaces per 1,000 SF should the tenant wish to have primarily office uses. • Parking has also been provided for 18 bicycles. • Landscaping meets the required 25% of the lot area. • The IDDSG also requires that any time a property is located adjacent to a property zoned agricultural or residential, such as this one, the project must provide a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer planting strip. The applicant has complied with the buffer requirements, as shownon sheet L-1 of the submittal. • The project is responsible for the placement of landsc ing in the conservation easement along Dillon Road and the right-of-way landscaping along CTC Boulevard. McCartney stated staff recommends aroval of a final PUD for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, CTC Filing No. 2 with the following two conditions: 1) This project is also responsible for the placement of landscaping in the conservation easement along Dillon Road and the right-of-way landscaping along CTC Boulevard. The landscaping will have to ®; 'nstalled at time of building development. 2) A Covenant Agreement � . required to consolidate the two properties. Commission Questions of Staff: Lipton noted the two building elevations (Lots 1 Deborski stat- • hat a hat ng on t pictures. and Lots 6 & 7) appear to be identical. uld be helpful as well as some larger Applicant 'resentatio and Questions of the Applicant: Bob Van Pelt reviewed the difference between the two buildings. The architectural styling is identical. Lipton que oned the cookie cutter buildings, the need to have them be more dissimilar. He expressed concern with the street presentation of the two buildings at a major intersection. Van Pelt stated the intent was to design with the same theme. He noted the introduction of glazing at the entrance is different on the buildings. He also stated there could be some change of color and the parapets could be different. Loo stated that a directional key would be most helpful on the plans. Members of the Public: None heard. Additional Questions of Applicant: None heard. Staff and Application Summary and Recommendation: