Planning Commission Minutes 2017 01 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2017 Page 10 of 29 Sheets asks Twombly if this can be done in Phasing? Twombly says we are trying to get Medtronic to commit to the next 10-15 years. We do not know if one phase would be able to accomplish that. Brauneis asks if the existing shared parking agreement says tenants in any of the buildings can park anywhere. Leer says yes. Brauneis says my biggest concern is the discussion of landscaping extending into the open space easement. What is the proposed landscaping and how does it differ from existing conditions on site? Leer says the existing conditions are an open field that is not irrigated. It is wild, low-lying scrub and brush. We have proposed bushes and trees requiring low water usage to screen the parking. We thought it would be welcoming to people on the bike path looking across scrub and low-lying planting instead of looking into a parking lot. Brauneis says there is an increase in hardscape in this build -out. Have you determined it is so minimal that it does not impact the floodplain adversely? Leer says yes. The fact that you have the entire detention area in the dedicated open space will be more than enough capacity. When we did the study, there was no rise in water level for the small portion of expansion of the building and parking. Brauneis asks what are the linear feet of proposed sidewalk/public connector to the bike path. Leer says the short section is about 20-25' and a much longer section is about 150'. Twombly says discussing the lacking 129 parking spaces, Cable Labs occupies the 858 Coal Creek building, is in a long term lease, and has 9 years left. They utilize 60% of their parking spaces according to property managers. Sheets asks if Medtronic has told you how much they will grow. Twombly says not specifically, but they are working on growth projections for the next 10-15 years. There are many variables. Sheets asks when construction is anticipated to begin. Twombly says if approved, in the next 2-4 years. Brauneis asks how do the pole lights in the parking lot work with the open space. Leer says we will comply with cut-offs of no light pollution over the property line. Public Comment: None. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff recommends approval. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Brauneis says I am less concerned about the parking issue. People are aiming to get below the ITE guidelines. These properties are an investment and owned by a for -profit organization. They know going into this project that they are limiting their potential future tenants who will or will not require a certain amount of density. While it might be tight and well -utilized, that is a decision they are making, to go into a lower level of parking. It does offer some environmental benefits on a micro -level and on a macro -level for the City. My concern is about the open space and encroachment, but I am certain they will come up with a reasonable landscape design. It is the raw number that leaves me concerned. Rice says when we get requests for waivers, I am always searching for justification and balance. The number of waivers sought and the extent of the waiver then increases the need for balance and justification. I am convinced that all the things being sought have a good reason and I think they are reasonable in light of what will be developed. Looking at it in the big picture, it seems to me that the current tenant is precisely the kind of business and employer we want to attract and retain in the City. To the extent that this kind of business employer wants to increase the size of their business, it behooves us to look at it seriously and allow it to occur if we can within reason. I am in support of the proposal as it is requested.