CC_Minutes_2015_1116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 16, 2015 Page 26 b. Approve Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Agreement 3608, Rosedale Center City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized requested actions tonight of the City Council, as detailed in the RCA and attachments dated November 16, 2015. Mr. Paschlce provide a brief history and brief review of the PUD Amendment analysis performed by staff and further detailed in the RCA, highlighting refer- ences to a pending public improveinent contract to be entered into by the devel- oper. After applicant review of staff's analysis and subsequent to dissemination of the agenda pacicet materials, Mr. Paschke noted they had raised soine questions as to required window placeinent and sought staff's rationale in what anchor tenants looked like for those building facades, noting that they were not department store fronts with a significant amount of glass facing a public street such as would be found in a more commercial, stand-alone retail ar office building scenario. Mr. Paschlce advised that the farade of this building would be similar to the Nordstrom's building at Ridgedale, and would be inore appropriate at 5% versus 20%. After further review, Mr. Paschke advised that staff agreed with the ra- tionale of the applicant, and was revising their recommendation (in lines 125 — 128 or the RCA) for openings to comprise 5% versus 10% to 20% as previously noted and to be reviewed in the PUD Amendment as well. Councilmember Willmus asked if roadway improveinents for this approximate 180,000 square foot addition context would involve that entire square footage or jttst the main addition. Mr. Paschlce responded that he was unsure of that, and deferred to the applicant or Public Works Director Culver to address that question relative to the traffic study done by the developer. Councilmeinber McGehee asked the types of use intended for the five outlot spaces. Mr. Paschke responded that future uses had yet to be identified, but he anticipated typical restaurant, bank or office type uses, all subject to approval of each use in accordance with City Code. If uses are yet to be determined, Councilmember McGehee questioned why those outlots needed approval at this time, since the original focus of this application was based on the main building and parking structure, without any idea of the us- es of those outlying pads at this time. Mr. Paschke advised that the outlots had been incorporated into land that is party to this PUD Amendment, with design standards dictating future development and