CC PACKET 06272004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

75 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ono A - u June 20, 2000 Page 6 1 requirements. The timing, however, would need to be negotiated to construct the stormwater 2 improvement. 3 Bergstrom asked Mr. Gleekel to highlight the specific changes with regard to the application. 4 Mr. Gleekel said there has not been any substantive changes, except the traffic analysis, which 5 was included with the Commission packet. Mr. Gleekel stated that he would assure the 6 Commission that the document in question had addressed the issue of the New Market site as 7 was discussed at a prior meeting. 8 Bergstrom thanked Mr. Gleekel for his input and presentation. 9 Bergstrom invited Ms. Ellen Berkelhamer, Senior Planner, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. 10 to address the Commission. 11 Ms. Berkelhamer began by reviewing that the proposed uses for the site are a land-use 12 designation for mixed uses. In other words, all of the uses designated for that category-would 13 apply and could be permitted. Hillcrest has submitted a list of uses that they would like to 14 develop a tenant base with, which was predominately general office tenants, and this is the 15 avenue Hillcrest would pursue. However, she stated that Hillcrest would like the opportunity to 16 build the space with other low-impact commercial uses in the case that general office is not 7 obtained. 18 She directed the Commission's attention to her memorandum of June 12, 2000, wherein the 19 recommendations of DSU were set forth on page 5, numbers 1 through 12. 20 21 Ms. Berkelhamer stated that stormwater is a significant issue and that Hillcrest is going beyond 22 what is required in terms of the site. Additionally, Hillcrest is working with an engineer and the 23 Watershed District. 24 Stille inquired about Ms. Berkelhamer's earlier comment that DSU would recommend removal of 25 the pylon sign. Ms. Berkelhamer stated that it was simply DSU's recommendation for a 26 monument sign as opposed to a pylon sign, as an aesthetic preference. However, Hillcrest had 27 not submitted a signage plan to date. 28 After calling for any comments from the audience with relation to this issue and hearing none, 29 Chair Bergstrom closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. 30 Hatch had a concern about some of the permitted uses as it related to noise issues and traffic 31 patterns. Bergstrom said some of those concerns would be covered under the Performance 32 Standards, and a traffic report would shed some light on the traffic patterns. 33 Motion by Thomas, second by Hanson,to approve the application for rezoning from C-1 to 04 Planned Unit Development(PUD) and for approval of the Preliminary PUD Plans, subject to