Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chair Bakeman reviewed the Public Hearing process for members of the audience; with the majority, if not <br />continued, scheduled to be heard at specific City Council meetings in March. <br />3 b. PLANNING FILE 08-001 <br />4 Continued request by McGough Construction, in cooperation with property owner Pik <br />5 Terminal, Inc., for approval of a REZONING and GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT <br />6 DEVELOPMENT at 2680 Prior Avenue (Pik Terminal) for the purpose of redeveloping into <br />z professional office, laboratory, and parking structures <br />s Chair Bakeman reconvened the Public Hearing for Planning File 08-001. <br />9 City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that, since the February Planning Commission meeting, the <br />1 c~ Community Development and Public Works Departments had presented the draft Twin Lakes <br />11 AUAR Infrastructure Allocation Study and Twin Lakes Public Financial Participation Framework to <br />12 the City Council, with approval of both documents at the March 3, 2008 meeting. <br />13 Mr. Paschke further noted that the City's traffic consultant, SRF, had completed the traffic study <br />14 specific to the McGough proposal and provided staff and McGough with recommended <br />~ 5 modifications based on the Twin lakes AUAR. <br />16 Mr. Paschke advised that staff had met with representatives of AmWest Development and CSM <br />17 to discuss their interest in redevelopment specific parcels with the Twin Lakes redevelopment <br />1 £~ area; and although no formal submittals had been provided, it was assumed that two (2) <br />19 proposals would be forthcoming within the next few months. <br />20 Mr. Paschke noted that the Twin Lakes Operations Team continued to meet regularly to discuss <br />21 critical issues to shape and guide development in the area. Mr. Paschke advised that McGough <br />22 Development had provided revised plans to address their interest in creating pedestrian <br />23 connections to the park and other public amenities within their redevelopment. <br />24 Discussion included whether the Planning Commission would see the plan again before final <br />development, with staff advising that it was not probable unless a land division was indicated <br />Lci right-of-way and/or utility easement dedications and lots divisions to accommodate various <br />27 structures;. consensus of commissioners on the importance of public access to the lake through <br />28 the corporate campus; continued refinements by the developer as they meet with the City's Parks <br />29 and Recreation Department and the City's advisory Parks & Recreation Commission on various <br />.io issues. <br />31 Mr. Paschke noted several items included in the updated staff report related to the developer's <br />32 work with the Parks and Recreation Commission and Department to provide public access to the <br />33 park and lake through a pathway. <br />34 Further discussion included location of a pathway based on grades, location of existing trees, and <br />35 other amenities being considered by the Parks and Recreation Commission and their ultimate <br />36 recommendation to the City Council for those amenities; improvements in environmental <br />37 contamination issues and remediation efforts and standards; lack of specificity and unknowns at <br />3t3 this time on property contaminants and conditions until the applicant completes Phase I and <br />39 Phase II environmental studies; grant cycles for environmental clean-up funding and procedural <br />40 requirements of such applications; and differentiation and preferences of a professional office <br />41 campus rather than a corporate campus as an alternative scenario. <br />42 Mr. Paschke noted the need to retain flexibility in the concepts should a corporate user not be <br />43 found, and other office uses that may meet market demands, and require building square <br />44 footage, footprint and height adjustments accordingly, while remaining within Twin Lakes urban <br />45 design guidelines and with similar impacts. <br />46 Further discussion included differences in trail and sidewalk locations and construction materials <br />4 r (i.e., bituminous versus concrete) and types of users for each or both. <br />°• City Engineer Deb Bloom addressed the City's Pathway Master Plan developed in the 1990's <br />based on accommodating pedestrians, and the changes in types of uses in current practice, <br />5C creating a need for multi-mod transportations and regional connections. Ms. Bloom advised that <br />