Laserfiche WebLink
#06-3249 CMP Amendment <br /> November l5,2006 • <br /> P�ge 4 ,�. <br /> Factors which may have soine bearing on how the reguiding back to `priinarily office' is <br /> siructured include: <br /> - The original guiding for office with "miiior retail and service uses allowed oi�ly as <br /> accessory uses to the office use" might need addifiional detail added to describe � <br /> exactly what accessory uses are, For instance... <br /> - Soine of the parameters established for retail in 2004 might be applicable to an <br /> office developineiit on the site and should be retained; such as the requiremeiit for _ <br /> orientation to the stormwater pond�as an ameiiity, the limits oii bttilding sizes or <br /> architecture styles, etc. � <br /> Procec�iirally, this CMP Ainendnlent requires approval of the Metropolitan Couiicil; <br /> however, it is expected tlus will be viewed as a minor amendineilt, will have no new or <br /> unplanned-for impacts on metropolitaii facilities, aiid is iiot e�pected to be met witlZ any <br /> resistance by Met Council. . <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> l. Does Planning Commission agree witli the Council's intent to ret�irn to the fonzier <br /> provisions of the CMP with regaxds to Outlot A? � <br /> 2. Are there any specific elemenis of flie original CMP laiiguage (first part of Eahibit <br /> A of Resolution No. 5190)that should be revised or clarified with tlus amendment? <br /> 3. Planning Coiiunission should consider whether there are any negative impacts to <br /> proceediiig with a rezoiung of the site to niatcli tlle�CMP... <br /> 4. Does Plamung Conunission have any other concerns regarding the proposed <br /> ailiendment? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Plaruiing Conunission shouid hold the public liearing, discuss the proposed auzendnient, <br /> and niake reconiniendations to Council regardiiig the re-gttiding aud regasding the <br /> rezoiiing. , � <br />