Laserfiche WebLink
361 <br /> <br />Item 6h <br />PUD-80-16-6D, Application for Design Review Approval to Construct <br />Two Industrial Buildings, Totalinq Approximately 58,770 Square Feet <br />on a 4.28 Acre Site Generally Located on the Northeast Comer oz <br />Franklin Drive and Morse Drive <br /> <br />Item 6i <br />PUD-80-16-7D, Application for Design Review Approval for a Five- <br />Buildinq, Approximately 46,300 Square Foot Commercial Center on a <br />5.4 Acre Site Generally l~cated on the Northeast Corner o~ <br />Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road <br /> <br />Consider Adoption of a Neqative Declaration for All Four <br />Applications <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that he would not participate in the <br />discussions for these items due to a conflict of interest. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:279) regarding the <br />matters. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked staff if it would be more appropriate, in <br />terms of taking action, to discuss Items 6g, 6h and 6i before <br />Item 6f. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the applications were a recompilation <br />of the conditions of the PUD, as originally approved in 1980, and <br />the major modification that occurred in 1982. The applications <br />also include potential changes in the allowed uses on several lots, <br />primarily Lots A and C, which have alternative uses different from <br />those allowed in the current PUD. Items 6g, 6h and 6i are <br />requesting final PUD design approvals on Lots E, F and B, <br />respectively, which staff felt could be approved without PUD <br />modification because the uses and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on those <br />lots are consistent with the PUD approved in 1980 and modified in <br />1982. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that the PUD, as originally approved in <br /> 1980, did not consider the later revisions of the traffic model and <br /> assumptions about the 1-580 and 1-680 Interchanges. He inquired if <br /> the traffic would remain within acceptable levels without the <br /> Hacienda Drive/I-580 Interchange. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the short term traffic analysis for the <br /> three projects, which includes traffic from potential uses on Lot <br /> A, indicates that the service meets the City's standard of .9 or <br /> better with the Hacienda Drive/I-580 Interchange. The long term <br /> analysis relates the projects with the proposed modifications of <br /> <br /> 7-17-90 <br /> <br /> - 13 - <br /> <br /> <br />