Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 09 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 8 of 12 Turner shows the commissioners the constraints they have and how it affects the industrial portion and the trailer port. She also addresses truck turning on the site and how the 180 ft. depth on the building is important to get quality tenants. Kevin Kelley, United Properties Kelley discusses his disagreement of Director Zuccaro's summation. He mentions that in the last five years, Etkin Johnson has not built a building in the CTC that is less than 180 ft. deep and have not built a truck court less than 130 ft. Every modern industrial building that attracts quality tenants has this standard. He states that they will not build less than 180 ft. deep. Discussion by Commissioners: Howe says that he understands the need for this to be marketable for the developer. What is most important for this proposal is what is facing 96t" St. Without this setback determination, there cannot be a good tenant and it will increase vacancy. This land has been an eye sore for a while. Unfortunately this lot is very awkward, being between commercial and open space. We need to minimize the retail vacancy and try to honor this rural entryway. The question is if the city wants to develop this land. If not, then we should say that we must have this setback. If we do, then we have to create a setback that will attract future tenants. He says that he is torn in between the two and would hate to have to fight between ten feet. To compare this to the CTC is unrealistic. This is not commercial/industrial. It is also not retail like Delo Plaza. He thinks that we need a compromise between both parties to find a solution. Diehl says that the rural entryway is a key component to the comprehensive plan. He recognizes that this is a unique property. He discusses more in depth of the importance of maintaining the rural entryway and how to sustain that with new development in this location. He wants to work with both parties involved so that that the rural entryway is not compromised. Moline says that he agrees with Diehl. He is hopeful that they can find a solution and appreciates the applicant trying to find a solution. He also appreciates what Director Zuccaro said during his summation. In the 16 years since this has been zoned with this setback, that setback is just as important now than when it was first instituted. Protecting and preserving the rural area from 96t" St is essential. He thinks having the 10 or 15 feet additional buffer would retain that and is an important consideration. Williams says that when she looks at the comp plan and how it has had this criteria for a rural gateway for many years, she has to heavily consider that. When she looks at the adopted GDP of 60 feet and how staff has already created a condition of approval at 55 feet, she thinks the city is working with the developer. She thinks that that is reasonable at this point and leaning in that direction. Brauneis says that he finds that this property is different. From going to 60 to 55 feet, allowing the parking to face 96t" St, and in allowing drive aisles within that setback space, he thinks that perhaps they have gone too far. He mentions that there was W