Laserfiche WebLink
Discusi and make a recomir.indation to Council as to whether the CMP should be amended <br />to re-guide the site from primarily office to primarily retail uses. <br />If you recommend in favor of the amendment, you should also do die following;1. <br />Review and confirm the list of allowed zoning uses you determined are <br />^ropriate for this property, and <br />Review carefully the dev’elopment goals and parameters laid out in the staff <br />letter of March 1 and confirm whether these are conditions that should be <br />incorporated into the text of a CMP amendment. <br />Gaffron stated that site plan issues discussion could be postponed to a fimire meeting. <br />There were no public comments. <br />In regards to the March 1,2004 letter, Mabusth reiterated the Commission’s continuing concerns <br />about the lack of adequate parking felt necessary, the need to take advanc er of providing a \new <br />of the pond with wmdows and everything facing “in” and how' plans from the applicant never <br />seem to incoiporate 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. Gaf&on <br />confirmed that is correct for that lot, but for th? balance of the site, city code would pre\'ail. <br />Chair Smith asked what is currently allowed on this site according to tlie 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 applicant 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 one-third of the site. The bank w ould be considered office <br />under current code. <br />Chair Smith asked what would be acceptable under the current plan? Gaffron responded no <br />more than 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. Gaf&on <br />responded that is coaect. <br />Chair Smith stated that what the applicant proposes makes some sense for the neighborhood. <br />Chair Smith alwrays wanted to see it be more in-service and more related to the rest of the Stone <br />Bay development than is currently proposed. Chair Smith agrees that the March 1, 2004 letter <br />lays out criteria that meet her desires. <br />L