pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 12 | The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers slips. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she was comfortable with staff's recommendations regarding the size limit in maintaining the 30,000 square feet. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that Mike Corbett raised the point that three small tenants should not be subject to the size limit of 30,000 square feet. Mr. Thomas asked whether the Planning Board intended to regulate tenant size or every project that was over 30,000 square feet of gross retail floor area. President Cook asked whether that should be a conditional use permit rather than a series of smaller tenants. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that it should be a conditional use permit, because the large tenant could potentially have more impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of traffic and other factors. Mr. Thomas noted that the definition could be changed to "tenant floor area of 30,000 square feet or more requires a use permit." President Cook noted that she was not swayed by the notion that because a use may have an existing planned development that the Planning Board should let it go. Mr. Thomas did not believe it should be "let go," but that it would be nonconforming; when any change would be brought to the Planning Board through a Planned Unit Development, it would be subject to the requirements. President Cook inquired whether it would be significant to the City if a number of tenants consolidated the spaces into one big box-sized space. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it would be significant. Mr. Garrison stated that the City could, with some minor editing, add some language to the amendment to clarify that if a number of smaller tenants were to be consolidated to one large tenant over 30,000 square feet it would require a use permit. Mr. Garrison noted that a 25% increase in floor area would be another trigger. Also, if the Planning Director determined there was a potential for substantial impacts, a Planned Development Amendment could be required. The City had the discretion under the existing PDA to say that the change from numerous small tenants to one large tenant may change the traffic dynamic substantially, and that a PDA may be required. Page 12 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |