08-12-2008 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes august 12, 2008 Pagc 2 not be able to place overstory trees in the GRE easement as requested by staff, due to GRE's requirements, but that ornamental trees would likely be allowed. He asked that they be allowed to work with staff on these landscaping issues. Mr. Gillet asked for clarification on Condition #5 -Provision of an easement to permit the encroachment of parking on Ciry property." Mr. Gongoll explained that the intent was to make the space available to the applicant fox parking, as well as transferring maintenance to them. Commissioner Anderson stated that the issue would need to be considered differently if the property is an easement or actual right-of--way. He also questioned the expiration date on the staff report for the 60 day review period. NIr. Leeseberg stated that the date on the staff report was in error. Mr. Gillet noted that the necessary easements have been obtained from GRE and are in the process of being recorded. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a way to screen the overhead door with plantings, such as lilacs. Mr. Gillet stated that it may be possible to place the door between the two buildings, and that the door would be integrated into the design of the building. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt this project should be required to meet the design standards of the adjacent PUD. Commissioner Westberg asked what the applicant is proposing for the green space. Mr. Gillet stated that overstory trees will not fit the site and would have to be "bunched up" in one small area. They are requesting that ornamental trees be allowed instead. He noted that they would like to be able to discuss this issue further with staff. Chair Westgaard stated that a condition is proposed that a landscape plan be provided, and this could be worked out with staff. Also, he felt the easement issue could be resolved by staff as well. He stated that there are architectural features that could be used to help screen the overhead door, but would prefer placing the door on the south elevation, since it would be screened by placement of the future building. He stated that he supported approval of the conditional use permit and plat. Commissioner Staul stated that he felt there should be some consistency in the design of these buildings with the Carson Street development. Comtissioner Ryan stated he does not have a problem with an overhead door. He stated that if the applicant attracts a business that requires an overhead door, he does not see it as an eyesore and was comfortable recommending approval. Mr. Gillet asked for clarification on their recommendation for placement of the door. Commissioner Ryan stated that he was comfortable having staff work with the applicant and felt the west elevation would be acceptable. Chair Westgaard stated that he would like to see the door moved to the south elevation. Mr. Gillet stated the area between the buildings would be a public area. He noted that the overhead door would likely be made of glass and would blend into the design of the building. Commissioner Lemke questioned having an overhead door facing the public area. NIr. Gillet concurred that it would not be consistent with the use of the public area. Commissioner Lemke asked if the development standards will be the same for this PUD as the Elk River Crossing PUD. Mr. Leeseberg stated that they may be very similar overall. Mr. Lemke stated he did not find anywhere in the Elk River Crossing PUD standards that overhead doors were excluded. Mr. Leeseberg stated that Mr. Barnhart's report did not exclude the doors, but suggested that they should be screened. Mr. Leeseberg stated he agreed that having an overhead door on the south elevation would not be compatible with a public area.