Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 14, 2019 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />Williams asked if a new property owner could build something additional on one of the <br />lots. <br />Ritchie replied that it would depend on what they were proposing, but maybe. There <br />was no more development capacity on the southern lot, but the northern lot had more <br />development opportunities. <br />Brauneis asked for additional questions for staff and the applicant. <br />Motion to bring the materials board into the record. Hoefner moved. Williams seconded. <br />Voice vote. All in favor. <br />Hoefner stated that he did not see anything about this change that would require the <br />Commission to reach a different result than they had previously. <br />Rice noted that properties became less marketable the larger and less flexible they <br />were, so from a planning perspective having two separate buildings was a better <br />approach. <br />Howe agreed with Commissioner Rice. He worried about the additional parking <br />triggered by a second business, but it seemed as though there was some flexibility to <br />respond to that issue. <br />Rice replied that anytime the City said to build the parking spaces, the property owner <br />had to build them. <br />Williams, Hsu, and Moline supported the application. <br />Brauneis stated that his concern had been over the landscaping, but the collective <br />requirement across the two properties made him feel comfortable with the waiver. <br />Rice moved to approve Resolution 6, Series 2019. Williams seconded. Roll call vote. All <br />in favor. <br />The Foundry PUD Amendment: A request or an extension of the expiration date <br />for The Foundry PUD (Resolution 7, Series 2019). <br />• Applicant: Foundry Builders <br />• Case Planner: Rob Zuccaro, Planning and Building Safety Director <br />Required public notice was met. <br />Zuccaro reminded the Commission that when it had recently reviewed the Foundry PUD <br />Amendment application Commissioner Hsu had observed that the PUD required an <br />extension. The applicant requests an extension to April 2, 2020, which the applicant <br />states would allow them to complete all phases of the development, including both <br />commercial phases. <br />Zuccaro explained that the reason that staff has an expiration on PUDs is that the <br />conditions in the neighborhood could change as could City values and guidelines could <br />change. In this case, there have been no changes to Design Standards and Guidelines <br />