Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />Preliminary Plat <br />46 <br />Mr. Paschke briefly summarized the project specifics with the proposal and pending <br />47 <br />development to the Rosedale Center site as detailed in the staff report dated September <br />48 <br />2, 2015 and shown on Preliminary Plat documents, essentially combining several lots <br />49 <br />and creating one additional lot as noted. <br />50 <br />PUD Agreement #3608 Amendment <br />51 <br />Mr. Paschke noted that since the lots and their respective legal descriptions would be <br />52 <br />changed, the PUD Agreement would need to be amended accordingly. Mr. Paschke <br />53 <br />noted that this would include development of a 141,000 square foot building addition, a <br />54 <br />450 space parking deck, and up to five out parcels that would be similar to the land lease <br />55 <br />of Chianti Grill east of the Har Mar Mall retail strip center. Mr. Paschke noted the project <br />56 <br />also included associated site improvements, including parking modification, stormwater <br />57 <br />management, additional islands in the parking lot, and other amenities as detailed in <br />58 <br />documents included in the redevelopment proposal. <br />59 <br />Throughout his presentation, Mr. Paschke displayed various plan forms and maps <br />60 <br />indicating the location of this proposed retail additional near the existing Green Mill <br />61 <br />Restaurant location, and location of the stormwater management area and second floor <br />62 <br />with parking deck and additional parking spaces. <br />63 <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed several components of the current PUD Agreement needing <br />64 <br />revision as part of the Amended Agreement, including zoning from the former “Shopping <br />65 <br />Center” designation to the current “Regional Business (RB)” zoning designation providing <br />66 <br />direction to staff in their interpretation of permit review including that of the new outlots to <br />67 <br />meet generalized conditions within the PUD for consistency and with current design <br />68 <br />standards including building setbacks related to property lines, building height and <br />69 <br />design, and parking deck placement in relation to the property lines. Under RB zoning, <br />70 <br />Mr. Paschke noted that building height would be limited to 65’ and he expected the <br />71 <br />addition to be similar to existing building components for the anchor tenant as well as <br />72 <br />related retail uses. Mr. Paschke advised that, as more detailed plans become available <br />73 <br />for review, current design standards for exterior elevations would be incorporated into the <br />74 <br />amended PUD Agreement and current design standards addressing building materials, <br />75 <br />solidifying smaller retail sites or restaurants, or office uses versus the main building. <br />76 <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed staff’s analysis to-date and how staff would address subsequent <br />77 <br />plans during the process as plans were further refined, including square footage for <br />78 <br />restaurant uses and parking stalls that appeared to exceed City Code requirements for a <br />79 <br />typical retail mall. Mr. Paschke noted that given current zoning ordinance and design <br />80 <br />standard requirements, future building plans for this proposal would need to meet those <br />81 <br />revised standards to the greatest extent possible as staff worked with the applicant during <br />82 <br />the review and permit process. <br />83 <br />In conclusion, and as detailed in the staff report, Mr. Paschke advised that staff <br />84 <br />recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as conditioned, and amendment of PUD <br />85 <br />Agreement 3608. <br />86 <br />Commissioner Questions of Staff <br />87 <br />Member Stellmach asked staff to explain traffic mitigation and whether this project would <br />88 <br />incorporate improvements to bicycle and pedestrian access in this area. <br />89 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that as part of staff’s review of the site, they would look to connect <br />90 <br />pedestrians from County Road B-2 for better access to the Rosedale Center site and <br />91 <br />surrounding area as applicable and as easily for them as possible with the fewest traffic <br />92 <br />conflicts. As far as broader traffic issues on County Road B-2, Mr. Paschke advised that <br />93 <br />staff would address existing concerns and issues, and suggest potential ways to remedy <br />94 <br />them as part of this proposal. <br />95 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that the parking ramp was <br />96 <br />proposed at one level by modifying of the elevation, estimating it to be 12’ to 15’ off the <br />97 <br />ground, and connecting J. C. Penney’s and the new additional. With Member Murphy <br />98 <br /> <br />