PL MINUTES 08012000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• - Page 4 1 Commissioner Hatch expressed his concern regarding noise and the exterior of the 2 building. Hatch wondered how the City will enforce these issues. Shardlow referred to 3 Exhibit A which spells out that this project will have hi tech uses and that the uses 4 inside will not downgrade the aesthetics. 5 Commissioner Hanson asked if Exhibit A replaces Shardlow's previous list and 6 Shardlow indicated he wanted to do a narrative rather than the list because he felt the 7 narrative better clarified Hillcrest's expectations and goals for the property. 8 Commissioner Stille inquired about occupancy and what would be the actual marketing 9 time. Shardlow said they are marketing from this point forward. 10 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Shardlow and asked City Attorney Soth to speak. 11 Mr. Soth noted that a Development Commission which is comprised of City 12 Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners cannot review the project as it is 13 completed. Staff can only make sure the project complies with the conditions agreed 14 upon. 15 Mr. Soth further clarified the TIF incentive for Hillcrest. If Hillcrest only does the minimal improvements, they will see little or no TIF. If the Preferred Plan is reached, Hillcrest will receive TIF accordingly. He stated that if Hillcrest does not perform, 18 they do not receive any TIF. 19 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Soth and asked Anthony Gleekel, a Hillcrest consultant, 20 to speak. 21 Mr. Gleekel indicated he is the primary author of the July 25 Development Plan. 22 Gleekel spoke of Hillcrest's need for flexibility and use of the Interim Uses. He said the 23 new plan is the same as the first plan except the new plan clarifies the landscaping, 24 drainage, signage, traffic and parking issues. 25 Mr. Gleekel responded to an inquiry about baseline comparisons by saying that the 26 Council and others toured other Hillcrest projects similar to Apache and that Hillcrest's 27 projects are highly thought of. He stated a baseline comparison of the internal plan 28 depends on the tenants and that the preferred plan is usually defined by tenants. 29 Mr. Gleekel referred to Exhibit O as the minimum plan and Exhibits I-K show more 30 building detail. He said there is more detail in this plan than in the first. He indicated 31 the signage somewhat depends on Herbergers and the lighting has not been revised. 32 They are still unsure of what part Herbergers will play in the project. For example, if Herbergers stays as an Interim Use, they may need additional retail. He concluded by