Laserfiche WebLink
In regards to the March 1.2004 letter, Mabusth reiterated the Ccmmission’s continuing concerns <br />about the lack of adequate parking felt i.. ccssary, the need to take advantage of providing a view <br />of the pond with windows and everything facing “in” and how plans from the applicant never <br />seem to incorporate the Commission’s concerns. Mabusth continued stating that the <br />Commission has accepted the 60 foot Walgreen lot and the change to the southeast side. Gaffron <br />confirmed that is correct for that lot, but for the balance of the site, city code would prevail. <br />Chair Smith ask what is currently allowed on this site according t^ the current Comp Plan. <br />Gaffron responded that the use is currently for professional offices with ancillary retail that <br />would support the office use such as a coffee shop as an example. <br />Gaffron continued stating when the ^rpdicant came to the city with primarily a retail plan with <br />two thirds of the site being retail and that then determined the need for a Comp Plan <br />Amendment. Walgreen’s is more than cne-third of the site. The bank would be considered office <br />under current code. <br />Chair Smith asked what would be acceptable under the current plan? Gaffron responded no <br />more frtan one-fourth can be retail. <br />Chair Smith stated the question for the Commission is whether to deviate from what the Comp <br />Plan calls for which is office and ancillary retail versus more retail and some office. Gaffron <br />responded that is correct. <br />Chair Smith stated that what the applicant proposes makes some sense for the neighbor a <br />Chair Smith always wanted to see it be more in-service and more related to die rest of the Stone <br />Page 8 of 41