Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Dunlap familiarized the Commissioners with the property on a map, described the proposed <br />changes and presented the renderings and floor plan. <br /> <br />A corrected revised plan was submitted by the applicant to move Building B out of the setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Dunlap indicated that the lessee holds leases to several parcels on Pawai Place and that this is <br />part of the lessee’s master plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Pernis pointed out that the windows at the end of the building have reduced <br />significantly. <br /> <br />Commissioner Andreae asked if there was a change to the bracing under the eaves. <br /> <br />Mr. Dunlap stated that it has changed due to the size of the building. <br /> <br />Chair Dahlberg asked the applicant to come up and present. <br /> <br />Michael J. Riehm (Riehm Owensby Planners Architects LLC) explained that an analysis was done in <br />regards to cost for implementing the previous plan however their analysis indicated that it was cost <br />prohibitive so they needed to revise their plan. He stated that the big vision is to eventually have <br />these three lots have a high level of continuity to brand it as a place at a coherent legible area. He <br />clarified that Pawai Place was never a part of this submittal. The reason we could not do the street <br />trees was due to cost. <br /> <br />Ms. Aguiar, Operations Development Manager with Manini Holdings, stated that although Pawai <br />Place is not a part of this project we are still pursuing putting in sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The <br />agreement with the County has been challenging regarding landscaping and irrigation so we have <br />decided to do landscaping on our properties so that we have a better ability to do maintenance and <br />irrigation rather than it being in the right-of-way and needing permits to do the work. <br /> <br />Mr. Riehm stated that an electrical car charging stall has been added, the shade structure was <br />removed because the food service tenant did not want it. A major change was adding the restroom <br />facilities. He stated that they needed to provide future tenants options for different storefronts <br />depending on their needs. He further stated that the buildings increased in size. Building A was <br />3,200 square feet and increased to 3,600 square feet. Building B was originally 3,154 square feet <br />and is not 4,510 square feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Riehm talked about the landscape plan and stated that they only needed to comply with Rule 17. <br />For cost reasons they eliminated any landscaping that was not required by that Rule. The buffer <br />area was removed because Mr. Riehm didn’t interpret that to be a requirement of Rule 17. He <br />requested staff to show him that requirement of Rule 17 after the meeting. <br /> <br />Commissioner Andreae asked whether the patrons will have to access the building from the <br />roadway side and will be unable to access from the parking lot side. <br /> <br />Mr. Riehm stated that the concept of this project was to get people on the street. Everyone that <br />comes to this project would flow on to the outdoor plaza and open areas. We are intentionally using <br />the rear of the buildings as a service entrance. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />