Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 13, 2017 <br />Page 3 of 12 <br />2. The applicant shall provide at least three different tree species along the north property <br />line prior to the public hearing before City Council. <br />3. The applicant shall provide written authorization from the property owner to the north to <br />allow an easement for the proposed storm sewer prior to the public hearing before City <br />Council. <br />Email entered into the record: <br />Motion made by Rice to enter email into the record, seconded by Hsu. Passes by voice vote. <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Hsu asks can you go over the easement and the landscaping issues in more detail. <br />Ritchie says in discussing the landscaping and request for a waiver, in the IDDSG, there is a <br />street tree requirement as well as street shrub requirement. Trees will be placed along the street <br />frontage. There are a number of utilities traversing the front of this property including water that <br />are in place. In order to prevent conflicts with them including damage as well as viability of tree <br />root systems, they are requesting a waiver. The Parks project manager who oversees <br />landscaping makes recommendations on behalf of the City for those requests. Staff had a good <br />discussion and the Parks manager concurs. Trees in that location are not viable. The detention <br />pond is located in this portion of the property. There is an outfall and it is proposed to run north. <br />The northern property line continues along here. They are proposing to run the storm sewer line <br />to an existing inlet in Arthur Avenue. The applicant may be able to speak in more technical <br />detail. We have had numerous conversations with the property owner to the north and they <br />have agreed conceptually to allow this design. Before going to public hearing at City Council, we <br />want written authorization from them that they will accommodate the easement, and that this <br />project will not need to be substantially redesigned. <br />Rice says we are provided with an email from a citizen that I gather came in after the packet <br />was complete. As I read it, is that the citizen suggesting that while these are being advertised as <br />storage units, in fact they will be used for other things such as warehouse use for people who <br />have a hobby, or even used to watch football games. What limits the use of this property? <br />Ritchie says from Staff's perspective, the first answer is that these storage units will not have <br />water in them or designed to be an occupiable space. The only bathroom on the property will be <br />located in the clubhouse. That will self -limit them. The use for the property being proposed <br />under this PUD is for storage use, not for warehouse use. Independent from how it may appear, <br />if the City hears that it is being used inconsistently with the use approved in the PUD, we can <br />enforce. Staff discussed the email and we do not have concerns. <br />Rice says the PUD, as we are being asked to approve it, limits the use to a storage use. Is that <br />what I hear? <br />Zuccaro says it depends on how we talk about the definition. We are working under this <br />assumption and applying development criteria for storage use. That is more relevant to parking <br />regulations. If someone wants to change the use of the property and it fits within the industrial <br />zone district, it theoretically could change that use as long as their development still complies <br />within all of those regulations. We do that with flex industrial space. We don't know what will <br />come in; it could be all light industrial or manufacturing or warehousing or office. We have <br />provisions to provide parking for contemplative uses. When they come in for a building permit, <br />they might change the design the building. We verify they meet minimum parking requirements <br />for that mix of uses. In this case, when it comes down to warehousing versus storage, all of the <br />development appears to be for storage uses. We do not see anything in this development that <br />suggests standard warehouse use as we commonly define warehouse use. If someone does, <br />we would make sure they comply with all building and zoning code regulations. <br />Rice asks if we approve this PUD, what is the range of uses the property can be put to. <br />Zuccaro says technically, anything within the industrial zone district. We have a use table in the <br />zoning code so they could do anything. The PUD defines what the building looks like, how tall, <br />landscaping requirements, and parking limits. They could do different tenant finishes in the <br />