Planning Commission Minutes 2018 07 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 12, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Van Pelt stated that the parking was set up for industrial use. The PUD provides for spaces in the center areas, which was part of the original PUD. Howe asked about the location of the truck entrances. Van Pelt stated that there were wider entrances off of CTC and 104t" Moline asked if the owner of Lot 2 might be able to guarantee that they would have the landscaping beyond the requirements. Van Pelt stated that that could be possible. He added that the two lots were designed to feel like one development. Hsu asked for public comment. None. Rice asked if the Commission could add a note to the PUD that Lot 2 would maintain landscape coverage at its present percentage. Ritchie stated that they could, but the PUD itself would require that the percentage stay the same since any changes would need to come back to staff and the Commission. She clarified her earlier estimate of the landscape coverage of each lot, stating that Lot 1 had 16.6% and Lot 2 had 32.6%. Hsu asked for staff closing statements. Ritchie restated staff support of the application. Hsu asked for applicant closing statements. Van Pelt stated that they were willing to work on additional language. Hsu closed public hearing and asked for comments of the commissioners Moline agreed with staff that having the landscaping on the two sites as a whole allowed a more appropriate location for the landscape to be massed nearer to the Open Space area. He voiced his support. Hoefner stated that there were efficiencies to be gained by having one detention pond and the PUD was drafted with both lots in mind. He did not think there were additional comments needed and he voiced his support. Rice stated that his concern about the landscaping had been assuaged. If anyone had to change lot coverage, they would have to do so through a PUD amendment process. He added that an additional comment regarding landscaping would provide additional protection. Howe wondered if the proposed changes increased the desirability of both lots. He stated that the difference in desirability made him uncomfortable since once lot could be left vacant. Hsu agreed with Commissioner Rice that there should be an additional comment noting that the PUD percentages were for the total lot. Responding to Howe's point, he was not worried about one being more desirable than the other. He saw the advantage of having a shared detention space and thought the Landscape Waiver appropriate.