PC 01/14/81 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Getty stated that all of the developments are congesting the area; Carnation, Denny's, etc. and asked why all of them do not have to contribute to the improvements of the area. Mr. Harris explained that they were constructed several years ago at which time there were no problems. He stated that in 1965 it was anti- cipated there would be 10-15 employees/acre in industrial areas but that a business park (commercial and offices) requires 40-50 employees per acre which is a considerable difference and that there are hundreds of acres of industrial land in this area and that the circulation system is not going to accommodate all of the traffic. He said these developments were not projected at the time of the original General Plan nor subsequent revisions. He stated we are simply asking the developers to accommodate their use with facilities to handle them. Commissioner Lindsey stated that Condition No. 8 covers this and Mr. Brown stated that they are willing to do that. Mr. Harris stated that even with assessment districts it might not mitigate all concerns and perhaps some of these areas in the General Plan might have to be changed. Mr. Brown spoke to Condition 28a and the requirement of 40 ft. between buildings. He stated he wants 30 ft. between the buildings because their project clusters and they want to provide for patios, plazas and things of that nature. Chairperson Wilson then asked if the applicant couldn't later apply for a variance for this. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Getty that the mitigated negative recommended for approval inasmuch ject would reduce any significant an insignificant level. Doherty, seconded by Commission prepared for case PUD-80-14 be as conditions imposed on the pro- adverse environmental effects to ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: Commissioner Doherty, Getty, Jamieson, Lindsey and Chairperson Wilson Noes: None Resolution No. 1935 was then entered and adopted recommending approval of the mitigated negative declaration prepared for case PUD-80-14. A motion was then made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Jamieson that case PUD-80-14 be recommended for approval subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes: That Condition No. 7 be changed so that all Level D's read Level E_, that the last sentence of that paragraph be..."has the right to withhold further approvals on the subject property is traffic becomes congested on or at nearby streets, intersections, interchanges, etc.; balance of conditions per the staff report including leaving 40 ft. between the buildings as stated in Condition No. 28. -11-