Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 03 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2017 Page 5 of 14 public walkway extends along Dogwood to Cherry. The landscaping will reduce as much visual impact as possible from the truck court. The building itself is concrete tilt -wall construction and parapets range from 36' to 34' to 32'. We have vertical transitions, horizontal transitions, and each transition is a 10' setback. Additionally, inside each setback is a 2-3' setback for entryways which are framed in glass and stone. There will be multiple colors on the buildings. Dan Skeehan speaks. The site has a couple of unique aspects. Along the Cherry Street property line, there are two 20' easements. One 20' easement is for irrigation and another 20' easement is for utility and drainage. The utility and drainage easement already has functioning utilities in place. This forced us to relocate the retention basin further to the north than we liked. It also restricted our ability to grade into that easement. Along the western property line, there is a similar drainage easement which restricts our ability to grade. The infrastructure is already in place with an existing 18-24" storm drain line west of the property line. The 20' easement is 10' on our property and 10' west of the property. Public Works wants to protect their interest and access to the area. This forces us to pull our retaining wall further to the east. Our site sits lower than the adjacent neighbors. The western neighbor will not see the retaining wall but landscaping. In driving down Cherry Street, the wall faces into the retention basin. Regarding the elevations of the wall themselves, the wall in the basin extends along the south and is fairly uniform along its width. The longer wall that runs along the western property line starts at about 18", gradually gets up to 3'9" and then quickly dies off. The high points are in the NW corner. We did not put as much building and pavement as we could have used. Our landscaping is 25.9%. We feel we have met the intent with additional landscaping including trees. Commission Questions of Applicant: Moline asks about the phasing of landscaping. At the point that parking will be built on the western edge and would no longer be a truck court, why not do landscape islands? Heiney says with the truck court there, and if we do have high user need for truck deliveries, 52' trailers will have difficulty with landscape islands. It wouldn't be ideal. Being a flex building, we want to maintain as much flexibility in the rear truck court. We have shifted the landscaping from those islands to the rest of the property. Hsu asks about retaining walls. Skeehan says typically when doing retaining walls, we build MSC walls with concrete blocks becoming uniform steps. It will step with the height. It will follow grade. Heiney says the western retaining wall will articulate height, it just won't articulate in and out. Sheets asks for clarification on a railing for the retaining wall. Skeehan says handrails can be discussed with Staff if necessary. We don't feel they are necessary because there is no adjacent pedestrian sidewalk. Zuccaro say Staff is not confident the building code will require it. If it is an issue of concern, the PC direct Staff to confirm it. Hsu says in looking at the IDDSG, it requires a handrail, fence, or hedge if a retaining wall is over 30". I would like Staff to look into this before City Council. Dean says Staff will do this. Pritchard asks if the applicant is okay with the conditions from Staff? Heiney says they are. Public Comment: None. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff recommends approval with the three conditions as drafted in the Staff report and a fourth condition about the retaining wall should the PC concur. Heiney says we will accommodate the need. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Rice says I am in support of the project. I think adding the fourth condition is a good one. 6