Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 05 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2023 Page 8 of 12 Hassan says the language for that one in particular came from the applicant and staff did not see a need to change that one. The language of other uses the applicant used was more restrictive so staff suggested similar uses that were compatible to what they had already mentioned. Krantz says so when you say medical clinics, you are not saying hospitals and are going with the more restrictive uses. Hassan says that is correct. Choi says in the staff report, there is an overlay image of the property that has redlines. Is that image accurate on showing the limits of where this applies? Hassan says staff removed Tract C because that is a drainage retention pond that is undevelopable. We only included Lot 1 B because of that. Brauneis asks staff about different uses and the possible sales tax revenue to the City. Ritchie says from a sales tax generation viewpoint, it is consistent with other uses in this area and zone district. Given the size of this as well, staff has the perspective that this site will not be generating massive revenue for the City. That is why we are comfortable allowing office use by right. Discussion by Commissioners: Howe asks Brauneis to elaborate on his office use discussion. Brauneis says his initial concern was that we would be converting something that had retail sales and therefore would have sales tax generation, and then we would no longer have that. Thinking of the size of the building and how it can generate more activity in that area, he is not as concerned as he was initially. Choi says he is in support of this. Thinking of what the site is now and what it could be, one thing that would be beneficial for the property owner to explore is optimizing the parking areas and drive paths. The detention pond plays into the overall traffic flow and it can be a difficult area to navigate. Moline says he also supports this. He agrees with staff's opinion on retail use and its generation of sales tax. He mentions traffic flow would be addressed and reviewed when they apply for a PUD amendment. Since tonight we are only focusing on the uses, he is comfortable with staff's recommendation. Osterman is in favor of this resolution. The uses included are in alignment with the neighboring properties. Baskett is in support of the motion. She would like us to be business friendly towards this area. Krantz says it sounds like there is a real need to change this so it is more flexible for future tenants. If this is zoned as retail and used as an office, would we have different design guidelines? Do we know which parking requirements would apply? This proposal would help reduce vacancies for this parcel. If we were to make the same concessions and allowed uses for all the lots of Parcel H, would that be a good thing though? If this is a good idea, that would then be a good idea for the entire area right? That is what she is worried about. Other than that, she is in favor of it. Howe says when looking at the big picture, we are a small city and we have the ability to remain very flexible. We can change some of these things on a certain 25