Planning Commission Minutes 2015 03 12

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 12, 2015 Page 10 of 23 2. Ghost windows or extra stickwork shall be added to the front facade end walls of the side wings to create additional visual interest. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Tengler in support. The questions raised in the letters appear to be the result of misinformation; that the project was a drug and alcohol rehab center. Regarding traffic, the staff number will be a minimal amount. Regarding alternative locations, the PC does not decide where businesses want to locate. Brauneis in support. He appreciates the traffic concern in the area. He does not think this proposed use will be grossly out of character with what is expected. Moline asks Staff what can be built on this location as a use by right? Robinson says office or research and development. It would be an office building similar to surrounding buildings. Russ adds from a traffic perspective, the allowed office use per square foot would generate more traffic than an institutional use or a research facility. O'Connell in support. She discusses the three shifts mentioned by the applicant of 74 full-time employees. She thinks this project is a benefit to the area. She states that people visiting patients will then visit restaurants and do some shopping. Rice in support. He states the question is not whether the property should be developed but what should be allowed to develop on the property. Currently, Parcel G has allowed uses of research, office, and retail. He thinks retail would generate more traffic than the use being proposed. Russell not in support. The aspiration for this corridor is clear: to activate it and make it interesting; create some sense of place. This parcel is not zoned open space so it will be developed. He does not support the architecture of the project, which he thinks is a blight on the community. Pritchard in support. He recognizes that there was misconception about the nature of this facility. In the future, if a facility of this nature is proposed, the City has an opportunity to address it through the SRU. He agrees that the architecture is not the best design. All land in Centennial Valley can be developed. He thinks this is a product the community needs. Tengler says that he agrees the building has little architectural distinction. O'Connell says it is outside the purview of the PC to ask the applicant to improve the exterior of the building. Russell states the PC critiques and drives design frequently. The use of the project is compatible with the area. The applicant is asking for a change to the zoning and the PC should then scrutinize it closely. Motion made by Tengler to approve Resolution No. 10, Series 2015. Seconded by Rice with the two conditions. Roll call vote. Name Vote Chris Pritchard Yes Jeff Moline Yes Ann O'Connell Yes Cary Tengler Yes Steve Brauneis Yes Scott Russell No Tom Rice Yes Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 6-1.