2015-09-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 19 buildings along Terrace Drive, Ms. McCormick noted they all had loading docks, and suggested 888 further incorporation of code restrictions or accommodations, such as no truck traffic on the north 889 side of those buildings after 7:00 p.m. Ms. McCormick further noted the need to use care in 890 limited processing uses in office uses that may have large trucks coming in with deliveries, 891 dumpsters, and other concerns needing to be addressed for these uses when adjacent to 892 residential properties. 893 With previous discussions and the definition for “large format retail” uses, Ms. McCormick opined 894 that 100,000 square feet may be excessive, and referenced a use she had presented in the past 895 and most current sites in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, distinguishing uses between 896 80,000 and 100,000 square feet, including related parking issues. 897 While not irrelevant, Chair Boguszewski noted that parking was mandated by square footage for 898 retail or other types of operation; and a store so large that it would outstrip the capacity of the site 899 to accommodate it would not be permitted, thus providing another safeguard. In addition, Chair 900 Boguszewski noted the only subarea allowing large format retail was CMU-4 by CU. 901 Mr. Paschke further noted that each proposal would be based on the actual use, noting there 902 could be an office, warehouse or retail uses at 100,000 square feet, with each having a different 903 ratio for parking requirements specific to that use. 904 Ms. McCormick expressed appreciation for that correction. 905 Specific to the road proposal connecting County Road C with Terrace Drive, Ms. McCormick 906 sought clarification as to whether that had previously been discussed and planned for and when it 907 had been approved. 908 Mr. Paschke responded that it had been discussed, with map designation originally taking place 909 back in the 1980’s, and Mr. Lloyd concurring, noting that other alignments had been considered 910 as well. 911 Mr. Bilotta noted that such planning involved putting a concept out there, and originated from the 912 Public Works/Engineering Department as part of discussions with adjacent property owners. Mr. 913 Bilotta noted that current road rights-of-way didn’t provide clarity on that design element, but long- 914 term planning could include Hershel as a cul-de-sac with another bulb on Terrace Drive for 915 connection. However, Mr. Bilotta further noted that there hadn’t been significant study done by 916 the Public Works/Engineering Department at this time, thus the “concept” status only as a 917 beginning discussion point with future developers looking at that area. Mr. Bilotta advised that he 918 anticipated future developers may also question that potential roadway, but that didn’t eliminate 919 its potential inclusion for discussion purposes at a minimum. Mr. Bilotta further noted that a 920 regulating plan was often adjusted, and may or may not be warranted as detailed uses and traffic 921 studies come forward. However, Mr. Bilotta noted that the area between Fairview Avenue and the 922 back side of the Byerly’s strip mall represented a large geographical area without any cut- 923 throughs that now push traffic out to the edges, and anticipated that may prompt a considerable 924 amount of discussion over time for Fairview and Lincoln Avenues, with the potential for alleviating 925 concerns over time. Again, Mr. Bilotta reiterated that this is only a concept and at this time did not 926 go beyond simply being shown on a map, with potential consideration for connecting the area at 927 some point in time. However, Mr. Bilotta reiterated that no traffic studies had been done or plans 928 put in place, with the Planning Commission the first step in considering such a concept and 929 providing feedback as to its merits or drawbacks. If the Planning Commission so directed, Mr. 930 Bilotta advised that staff could revise the regulating map to delete that aspect if they thought it 931 was inappropriate, but again reiterated that this is the initial discussion at this point. 932 Ms. McCormick expressed appreciation for that further background information; and asked that, if 933 that is the case, that aspect be tabled. With the update to the Comprehensive Plan in the not too 934 distant future, Ms. McCormick suggested it may be more appropriate for more discussion and 935 consideration at that point. 936 Ms. McCormick reiterated that their residential neighborhood was quite concerned about the 937 impact of Twin Lakes Parkway and improvements planned east of Fairview Avenue, including 938 increased traffic on Terrace Drive causing disruption to the neighborhood to the north and their 939