Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 09 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 3 of 12 Rice also confirms that the applicant's view point is that the building should be limited to a 55 foot setback but that the parking should be closer, as close as 30 feet to the roadway. Ritchie says yes, that is the applicant's proposal. Williams asks if staff is okay with having the parking lot between 96t" St and the buildings. Ritchie says the way the condition is drafted would allow either parking or building so there would be no distinction. Williams asks if originally no parking would be in the front. Ritchie says yes, that is the current standard. Williams asks if we are letting that standard go. Ritchie says yes, staff recognizes that some flexibility there could be beneficial for the applicant. We feel more strongly about the depth of buffer. Howe asks if staff could clarify exactly where the proposal would be built. Ritchie, using an image of the parcel, shows where the proposal would be along the area fronting S. 96t" Street. Brauneis says that regarding the proposed change in the enhanced landscaping, his concern is that it does not have a big enough difference from the existing language. He is concerned with the language that mentions these phrases: "goal of minimizing... greatest extent feasible." It concerns him that that language may not be strict enough. He asks staff if they think this language provides strong enough requirements that would satisfy the community. Ritchie says that he brings up two interesting points. One being how much landscaping does the city want? Do we want a heavy landscape buffer when it is adjacent to a rural open space? If this is not the right language, we would like the commissioners feedback on that and what it could be changed to. We also recognize though that parking lots are not an attractive feature and if that is now allowed in front of the buildings, our intent is to make sure that the applicant's treatment of the landscaping is important and elevated. Zuccaro says that staff prefers the language that will allow the largest buffer possible. Because of the adjacency to open space, having it continue to feel open is the ultimate goal. Throughout this entire proposal, we have recommended the maximum buffer possible, while the applicant has proposed more landscaping in lieu of the buffer. We have had concerns about this language and its enforceability. We are trying to get comfortable of the language but if we have a maximum buffer, that is very important in our opinion. 5