Laserfiche WebLink
• #07-3250 <br /> � Jnnu�ry [1,2007 <br /> P�gc�t of 12 <br /> City orcliilaiices also dictaie tliafi prelimivary plat �pproval is effective for one yev. Becattse <br /> prelinunary ancl final plat �.pprovals were gra�ited siz�iultaueously, tlle effective periocls of <br /> prelin�inary ancl fin�l approvals zan coiictirreilfily, Final plat approval expired six inontlis aftez• <br /> adopfiioii of Resoluiioii No. 5387, oii April 10, 2006, because the condii:ioils of the resolutiou Iiad <br /> not beeii inet, and the applica�its haci ilot ilz�ide tlie necess�uy submitt�ls. However, preliiiiinary <br /> plat approval coiitiiilzed iii effect tuitil oiie .year after adoptioii of Resolui:ioil No. 5387, i.e. tultil �. <br /> , October 10, 2006. Witlun tlze weeks just prior to OctoUer 10 cleadline tlze applica�its attempted to <br /> coinplete tlle reqtlired submittals, aiid requestecl that Cottiicil�ant a secoiid finai plat approval. <br /> .� On October 23, 2006 tlle City Council voted 4-1 fo deizy au e�tensioii of the effective period of . . <br /> prelinzinary plat approval uid denied the request for a second fiiial plat approval, finding tliat the <br /> coiiditions of Resollition No. 5387 had iiot been met witluii the allottecl tiine period. . Coluicil . <br /> concluded that subnuttal of periliits fiom MnD�T was an essential eleiiieiit of the coiiclitioizs that <br /> was not coizlpleteci. Council directed applicants to begui the entu�e review process auew, � . <br /> � All approvals atid docunients associated with application#05-3080 are considered as terininated <br /> and no loiiger valid. The Letter of Credit was ret�irned to the applicants and development fees <br /> paid by the applicants were refunded in late 2006. The applicailts have ilow subilutted a new <br /> applicatiou, nearly ideiztical to the previousl.y concept plau proposal, with some miizor revisions <br /> intended to address the access issues. � <br /> CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW � � , <br /> �General Concept Plaai review and approval is required as part of the Higllway I2 PUD rezoning <br /> � and development process. General Co�cept Plaii approval would be similar to a Prelinninary Plat <br /> approval in that it conunits the City to approving the projec�t, but without aetually approving the . . <br /> Prelinzuiaxy Plat tuitil otlzer,issues have been resolvecl. Review of this a�plication wi11 focus � <br /> priniarily on the followiiig areas: � . <br /> - Impact on adjoining properties <br /> - Building locatioii,height, arclutectural nzaterials aild building design . . <br /> � - Landscapuig and screeizing <br /> - Tra�c flow,road systeni impacts and needs <br /> - Parlcing requirements and arrangement � . <br /> Overview � <br /> Tlie five proposed 2-uiut office buildings are e�cli one-and-a-half story walkouts with a left aiid � <br /> right tuut, sllarixig a co���i�ion eniryway at tlie lst story level. Gross square foota�e of each , <br /> building is approxiiiiately 6,800 s.f, wifih each unit havuig a 1,000 s.£ lower level, a 1,000 s.f. <br /> inain level, atld a 600 s.f. loft,plus 1600 s.i: of shared conuiion areas. Tlze subiiliii:ecl platis do not . <br /> �sliow iiiterior p�trtitioi�ing of individual tuiifs,,wl�.icl�.presLiizzably would be left fo the discretioil of � <br /> tlie individual ui�it owner. The inient is that each unit woulci be individually ow�.led, witl� cross <br /> easeiiieilts for tlie shared interior spaces, and all portions of the site e�terior to the Uttildings ' <br /> iiicltidii�g green s�aces, sidewalks ancl parlcing areas, beiilg withiil a single coilunonly-owned lofi. <br />