Planning Commission Minutes 2016 12 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 8, 2016 Page 3of6 • Identification signs o Ten 1.5'x10' locations o Eight sign limit 0 18" character height • Waivers requested for character height (over 18" for multi -tenant), number of signs (2 signs per frontage per tenant), total sign square footage (222 SF if maximized) Waivers requested • Access drive alignment o Public works reviewed o Not consistent throughout CTC o Loss of parking and difficult turns • Signage: character height, number of signs, total square footage o Flex building, flex signage o Consistent with other sign waivers in the CTC Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve Lot 2, Block 3, Park at CTC PUD: Resolution No. 27, Series 2016. A resolution recommending approval of a final planned unit development (PUD) to construct a 62,380 square foot industrial/flex building with associated site improvements on Lot 2, Block 3, Park at CTC. Commission Questions of Staff. Moline says I have no concern about the parking. I look at the site and think about doubling the amount of parking. Could it physically fit on the lot along with the appropriate landscaping? Trice says Staff would review it at tenant finish. Most likely, they would not request and require the 4 spaces/1000 SF. Hsu says regarding signage, we have waivers frequently. Is there logic between 18" and 24" in the IDDSG? What can we use to decide whether we should grant waivers? Trice says the applicant is not asking for more than 24" in character height. The IDDSG limits the 24" character height to a single occupant building. They are asking for this waiver for a multi -tenant building. The 24" character height is also in the CDDSG. Staff sees no issues. I do not know why there is a distinction between the 18" and 24". Rice says the waiver that is sought is an increase from 80 SF total to 222 SF total. It strikes me as being a significant variance because it is 3X what the code calls for. What justifies it? Trice says it is justified if they max out with multi -tenants. It would not be allowed for a single tenant that would be allowed a branding sign, not ID signs. The more signage and more square footage are intended for the possibility of multiple users which is typical of the IDDSG. More signs for more tenants. Rice says the code would limit it to 80 SF. I am used to seeing requests for a variance or waiver that are more in keeping with what the limit is. 3X appears to be extravagant. Trice says I don't believe they would have the same impact on such a large building. I doubt they will get to a point where all signage would be used. I agree it is big increase from 80 SF. Rice asks whether there are other examples of construction in the CTC where we have approved 3X the limit. Trice says I don't know what the maximums have been at other locations. I know that we consistently exceed the 80 SF. Rice says regarding parking, the comment is made that this ratio, 2.12 spaces/1000', is similar to other flex buildings in the CTC. What are the examples of them? Trice says any flex building that has been submitted recently has come in at 2 spaces/1000' because it is allowed in the IDDSG. There is a caveat for flex buildings that parking will be reviewed later once there is a final use.