Laserfiche WebLink
#06-3249 CMP Amendment <br /> November 15,2006 <br /> Page 4 <br /> � Factors which may have soine bearing on how the reguiding back to `primarily office' is <br /> structlued inchic�e: <br /> - The original guid'uig for office with "iiiuzor retail and service uses allowed only as <br /> � accessory uses to the office use" iiiight need additional cietail addeci to describe <br /> exactly what accessory uses are, for iiistance... � <br /> - Some of the pasameters established for refail ir1 2004 miglrt be applicable to an <br /> office developineiit on the site and should be retaiiied; such as tlie requirenlent for <br /> orientation to fihe storiiiwater pond�as aii ameiuty, the limits on building sizes or <br /> architechue styles, etc. • • <br /> Procedurally, this CMP Ainendmeiit requires approval of the Metropolitan Comzcil; <br /> - however, it is expected tlus will be viewed as a minor amendnlent, will have no iiew or <br /> uuplaiuled-for ullpacts on metropolitan facilities, aud is not expected to be iilet with any <br /> resistance by Met Council. � <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> l. Does Plaiuung Coxmiiission agree with the Council's intent to ret��rn to the former <br /> provisions of the CMP with regards to Outlot A? <br /> 2. Are there any specific eleiiients of the original CMP language (first part of Exlubit <br /> A of Resolution No. 5190)that should be revised or clarified with this amendmeut? <br /> 3. Planriing Conuiiission should consider whether there are a.uy negative impacts to <br /> proceeding witli a rezoniiig of the site to iiiatch the CMP... <br /> 4. Does Planning Conulussion have any other coiicerils regarding the proposed <br /> amendmeiit? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Plaiming Coilunission should hold flie public hearing, discttss the proposed ainendinent, <br /> and make reconunendatioiis to Council regardiiig the re-guiding aiid regarding the <br /> rezoiiiiig. � <br />