My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 11 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 11 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2021 5:13:34 PM
Creation date
11/8/2021 2:22:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
11/11/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 14, 2021 <br />Page 2 of 9 <br />• Case Planner: Lisa Ritchie, Interim Director <br />All required notice was met. <br />Ritchie shared the history of the larger site and the development currently underway. <br />She then described the application, which met the setbacks and height requirements in <br />the General Development Plan (GDP) and included enhanced landscaping and dark sky <br />lighting, and complied with the Commercial Development Design Standards and <br />Guidelines (CDDSG). Staff applied the drive-thru standard for orientation to this plan, <br />which stated that stacking lanes cannot be within the building setback, and with which <br />the plan complied. There was another requirement that stated that the lanes be <br />screened from public right-of-way. To that point, Ritchie stated that the plan met <br />enhanced landscaping, but the majority of the trees were deciduous so in certain times <br />of year the landscaping screen would not fully screen the lanes. Staff believed there <br />should be more evergreens to address that issue and staff believed that the applicant <br />was willing to contemplate those changes. Ritchie requested commission direction on <br />the importance of the type of trees. <br />Ritchie also shared the Special Review Use application, which staff found met the <br />criteria. <br />Staff recommended approval with the following condition: <br />1. Prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant shall amend the PUD to replace <br />deciduous trees and shrubs with additional evergreen trees and shrubs to <br />effectively screen the drive -through stacking lanes. <br />Diehl asked for the location of the 55-foot setback, which Planner Ritchie showed on the <br />plan. She stated that the proposal showed a lot of cars waiting on the site and she did <br />not know how often the lanes would be stacked to capacity. <br />Diehl asked about the maturity of the trees when first planted. <br />Ritchie stated that evergreens were required to be between six and eight feet tall on day <br />one with deciduous trees having a 2.5 caliper on day one. She noted that it would take <br />years for trees to mature to what was shown on the renderings and she noted that the <br />Commission could ask for larger trees to be planted on day one. <br />Diehl asked for a comparison to 7-11. <br />Ritchie replied that they did not have the same screening requirements but 7-11 did <br />have enhanced landscaping. She stated that there would be a visible difference of <br />screening along the corridor. The CDDSG allowed for a low wall for screening, but staff <br />had a concern that that might not be compatible with the rural character across the <br />street from the site. <br />Diehl asked if there was anything that defined "gateway" visa-vis the rural context and <br />gateway language. <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.