2015_0126_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke advised that the final plat would have those questions answered, including access onto Cleveland Avenue and potential traffic flow across the properties, which was needed information before moving forward to final design and platting. Depending on the time for traffic study results and findings and recommendations of the City Engineer, and subsequent discussions with the applicant and other jurisdictions by the City Engineer, Mr. Paschke advised that those decisions would occur prior to any final plat approval. Specific to the staff Design Review Committee (DRC), Member Daire asked how they had arrived at their conclusion regarding a “unified” development (page 2, line 34) and how they determined the two separate developments were related. Mr. Paschke advised that, while not related, the area was considered as one development site, thus requiring coordination of a number of things, including storm water management, grading, shared access points, signage with a master sign plan for the area, and other infrastructure amenities. Mr. Paschke opined that neither site could stand on its own without assistance and coordination with adjacent parcels, thus the determination of a “unified” development, or in other words, one development with two separate developers. At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke confirmed that “unified” was not the same nor did it indicate being a Planned Unit Development (PUD). At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke confirmed that staff had received no public comment to-date regarding this development or Preliminary Plat. Member Stellmach questioned if staff had any sense of the potential tenants for the two retail buildings, which may impact proposed parking space. Mr. Paschke advised that staff had no information on tenants at this time, and the use was simply identified as “retail,” allowing for particular uses as defined by code. Mr. Paschke noted that some restaurant uses may be defined as more retail in nature versus a sit-down restaurant; but clarified that all were specifically addressed in code and parking was based on the square footage of the building itself. Based on the Preliminary Plat proposal at this point, Mr. Paschke advised that sufficient parking was available to meet minimum parking standards; and that analysis would be updated once a final use was identified and with the shared parking as identified. Member Boguszewski questioned if, given the proposed size of retail buildings and the intent at this preliminary plat stage for two buildings, if the developer or owner could change that from two to one larger building. Mr. Paschke suggested the developer respond to that question; reminding the Commission that at this preliminary plat stage, building size was not an applicable consideration as the body was basically approving the lots and lot lines for the parcel(s). Mr. Paschke noted that subsequent plans could definitely change from two to one building, and may vary several times throughout the process, since they were not etched in stone at this preliminary staff. While having proposed facilities identified may help to inform the process, Mr. Paschke noted that it was not a major consideration for preliminary plat approval. Member Cunningham asked how a traffic study was done, whether specific to one development or cumulative in nature to determine area-wide affects in overall traffic patterns. For example, Member Cunningham sought information on the “before” and “after” impacts of the WalMart development, based on concerns expressed by residents about the huge amount of traffic such a development could create, and now how this future development would impact traffic. Community Development Director Bilotta advised that the traffic study consisted of building a model, with each development added onto the other. Mr. Bilotta advised that this traffic study would take into account land use changes over time, including those from the WalMart development. Mr.