2007-23 AMENDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - #2 NORTH COUNTRY CLUB ROAD

Home Browse Search

� • Page 2 of 3 #2 North Country Club Road Apri15, 2007 no intentions of building a third building and a neighbar, Mr. Ti Dudley, stated he was in 'i support of the amendment as Dr. Penwell had met with him a d discussed the proposed amendment (increase in parking) and there would not be a third bui ding. Currently the subject site contains a 5,580 square foot office building, a 1,705 square ot office building and 54 parking spaces. � PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The subject petition requests amending the Office District Planned Unit Development to allow for a 2,244 square foot expansion of the building in th� Southeast portion of the development where Suite 2 is shown on the attached site plan. 2. The petitioner plans to construct the proposed building expansio on the area that was to be reserved as greenspace in the 2000 petition as well as was stated a the Council meeting. STAFF ANALYSIS 1. In the past, this development has had incremental changes util zing the PUD amendment process and the requirements have not always been met. 2. The current site has been developed in accordance with the site pl n dated September 9, 2001 as attached to Ordinance #O 1-1 OS approving parking amend ents to the Planned Unit Development. 3. In March 2000, Council approved an amendment that staff suppot'ted based on density being decreased to 7,000 square feet of office buildings. This amendment would increase the density of the development by adding 2,244 square feet of office building to a total of 9,529 square feet. Brian Penwell stated at a November 2001 Counail meeting that he had no intention of constructing a third building. The proposed buildi 'g expansion is not a third building, however, it is larger than the building it is intended to e tend. 4. Staff can not support an amendment for this development when two previous amendments were approved by Council with the understanding that the greens ace to the south would be preserved and a third building would not be constructed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends denial of the PUD amendment. PLAN COMMISSION ACTION 1. According to section XIX.G.2 of the Zoning Ordinance the Pla Commission shall review the application at a public hearing and make findings concerning the consistency of the application with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and other land development regulations. Based on the findings, the Plan Commission will mal�e a recommendation to the