Laserfiche WebLink
In the past, this development has had incremental changes utilizi �g the PUD amendment <br /> process and the requirements have not always been met. <br /> In March 2000, Council approved an amendment that staff sup orted based on density <br /> being decreased to 7,000 square feet of office buildings. This mendment before you <br /> would increase the density of the development by adding 1,98 square feet of office <br /> building to a total of 9,265 square feet. Brian Penwell state at a November 2001 <br /> Council meeting that he had no intention of constructing a third uilding. The proposed <br /> building expansion is not a third building, however, it is larger than the building it is <br /> intended to expand. <br /> Staff can not support an amendment for this developmen when two previous <br /> amendments were approved by Council with the understanding th t the greenspace to the <br /> south would be preserved and a third building would not be const cted. <br /> Additionally, the approval of the 2000 petition to expand the square footage of office <br /> space and to increase parking within this development then led to the 2001 petition in <br /> which more parking was needed to accommodate all offices on he site. If the current <br /> petition were approved to increase the number of offices with the 1,980 square foot <br /> expansion, staff would assume that parking will need to be increas d at a later date, thus a <br /> need for an additional amendment to increase parking. At this ti e, there appears to be <br /> no area left in the O-1 PUD that would be able to accommodate a ditional parking stalls. <br /> Therefore, a motion to forward Calendar Number 07-15 to th City Council with a <br /> recommendation for denial is suggested. <br /> Mr. Nordholm asked what was wrong with incremental change. <br /> Ms. Stickle stated that part of the PUD process is to say what is going to be <br /> accomplished. Ms. Stickle stated that in this case more space is eing added but with no <br /> additional parking. <br /> Mr. Nordholm stated that he thought the purpose of the PUD was to be able to make <br /> incremental changes. <br /> Ms. Stickle stated that changes are fine but that was not the intent f the PUD. <br /> Mr. Nordholm asked what the issue is with staff re ardin the e n s ace. <br /> g g �' P <br /> Ms. Stickle stated that staff can not support something that ent to council on two <br /> separate occasions to protect the green space. <br /> Mr. Nordholm stated that growing businesses can not always anti ipate changes. <br />