2015-04-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 7, 2015 Page 3 With Member Daire noting that a Preliminary Plat did not have all those questions 93 answered, Mr. Paschke responded that a Preliminary Plat never did have that detailed 94 information available. 95 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke advised that the final plat would have those 96 questions answered, including access onto Cleveland Avenue and potential traffic flow 97 across the properties, which was needed information before moving forward to final 98 design and platting.Depending on the time for traffic study results and findings and 99 recommendations of the City Engineer, and subsequent discussions with the applicant 100 and other jurisdictions by the City Engineer, Mr. Paschke advised that those decisions 101 would occur prior to any final plat approval. 102 Specific to the staff Design Review Committee (DRC), Member Daireasked how they 103 had arrived at their conclusion regarding a “unified” development (page 2, line 34) and 104 how they determined the two separate developments were related. 105 Mr. Paschke advised that, while not related, the area was considered as one 106 development site, thus requiring coordination of a number of things, including storm water 107 management, grading, shared accesspoints, signage with a master sign plan for the 108 area, and other infrastructure amenities.Mr. Paschke opined that neither site could stand 109 on its own without assistance and coordination with adjacent parcels, thus the 110 determination of a “unified” development, or in other words, one development with two 111 separate developers. 112 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke confirmed that “unified” was not the same 113 nor did it indicate being a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 114 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke confirmed that staff had received no 115 public comment to-date regarding this development or Preliminary Plat. 116 Member Stellmach questioned if staff had any sense of the potential tenants for the two 117 retail buildings, which may impact proposed parking space. 118 Mr. Paschke advised that staff had no information on tenants at this time, and the use 119 was simply identified as “retail,” allowing for particular uses as defined by code.Mr. 120 Paschke noted that some restaurant uses may be defined as more retail in nature versus 121 a sit-down restaurant; but clarified that all were specifically addressed in code and 122 parking was based on the square footage of the building itself.Based on the Preliminary 123 Plat proposal at this point, Mr. Paschke advised that sufficient parking was available to 124 meet minimum parking standards; and that analysis would be updated once a final use 125 was identified and with the shared parking as identified. 126 Member Boguszewski questioned if, given the proposed size of retail buildings and the 127 intent atthis preliminary plat stage for two buildings, if the developer or owner could 128 change that from two to one larger building. 129 Mr. Paschke suggested the developer respond to that question; reminding the 130 Commission that at this preliminary plat stage, building size was not an applicable 131 consideration as the body was basically approving the lots and lot lines for the parcel(s). 132 Mr. Paschke noted that subsequent plans could definitely change from two to one 133 building, and may vary several times throughout the process, since they were not etched 134 in stone at this preliminary staff.While having proposed facilities identified may help to 135 inform the process, Mr. Paschke noted that it was not a major consideration for 136 preliminary plat approval. 137 Member Cunningham asked how a traffic study was done, whether specific to one 138 development or cumulative in nature to determine area-wide affects in overall traffic 139 patterns.For example, Member Cunningham sought information on the “before” and 140 “after” impacts of the WalMart development, based on concerns expressed by residents 141 about the huge amount of traffic such a development could create, and now how this 142 future development would impact traffic. 143