Planning Commission Minutes 2015 03 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 12, 2015 Page 17 of 23 mixed use redevelopment proposal. It will not be submitted as the entire Boom property but half, since some is developed, produces good cash flow, and has long term tenants. Regarding the DELO Plaza proposal, he feels it is "above and beyond" what is currently situated at the site. He feels this area has been the "eyesore" of Highway 42 and is not indicative of the quality of the larger community. McClure states that the DELO Plaza is a catalyst project and will encourage other property owners to come forward. Stephen Tebo and Tebo Properties are submitting this development of 100% retail and they are encouraging the Boom family to redevelop their property. McClure shows photos of the property in 2010 which was an old concrete batch plant. He feels the photos show the property to be blight. He shows the view from DELO Phase 2 development with the back of Alpine Lumber. McClure shows photos of a McCaslin development that previously was office use (Cherry and McCaslin). Koelbel redeveloped the project with minimal landscape intrusion, parking in the front, the building situated diagonally and not 225 feet back, and maximum street frontage to the corridor. The building is now anchored by Qdoba, Starbucks, Dickies, and Smiling Moose. He thinks this is the most successful retail property in the McCaslin corridor. He feels you can see where to park and see the tenants. He then shows development along McCaslin farther north with large buffers, signage not easily seen, and no visible parking. There are vacancies in these buildings. McClure discusses signage, landscaping, and buffering setbacks in regard to a viable retail development. He is concerned that a developer will not build a project that will not attract tenants or cause tenants that leave because it is not profitable and successful. He shows "birds eye views" of before and after the proposed DELO Plaza. Condition 2 states: All signs, including any monument sign, shall comply with Chapter 7 of the CDDSG, as well as Section 17.24 of the LMC, including a 10 foot setback from right-of-way. McClure says they are open for conversation but respectively request the condition be removed. Good signage and visibility are necessary since it is auto -oriented. Condition 3 states: The applicant shall continue to work with Public Works on addressing the comments shown in the February 11, 2015 memo. McClure says there is one comment in the memo specific to drainage. There is a crown in the middle of the property. The southern portion drains to Highway 42 infrastructure. The northern portion will drain into the twin 60 inch RCP that are being improved as part of the DELO Phase 2 project. They are trying to preserve natural grade and minimize expense. The 60 inch RCP will drain in the core area pond. It adds a $70,000 additional cost to the project. Condition 4 states: The proposed sidewalks shall match the sidewalk design included in the Highway 42 Plan. McClure says that instead of making improvements now and then have them removed when the City implements sidewalk construction adjacent to Highway 42, they wish to contribute funds to the Access Control Plan Improvements. Condition 5 states: Because the Hwy 42 sidewalk is required, the applicant shall modify the landscape sheets prior to recordation to remove the parking stalls, located along Highway 42, and be replaced with landscaping in compliance with the MUDDSG. The applicant shall also include an east/west sidewalk, connecting Highway 42 to the larger commercial building, via a sidewalk located within a landscape island. McClure says if the buffer is installed, parking is removed, and then landscaped, retail will not be visible. The landowner wants to develop the property with retail visibility and opportunity for