Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayer stated that, as he was going by Avista Hospital recently, he noticed the generator is very <br />visible. He asked Wood whether the generator was shown as screened on the original Lot 1 PUD. <br /> <br />Wood replied that it was not. <br /> <br />Feinberg replied that it was originally shown with a tr((e and a few bushes. Once the generator <br />was received, they realized that the bushes were not adequate and, on their own, removed a <br />number of the bushes and replaced them with evergreen trees. Further investigation was done to <br />determine additional ways of mitigating the appearance of generator, as they do not like it either. <br /> <br />Mayer replied that is is very unsightly and asked if this was going to be addressed in some way <br />with this PUD. He would like the applicant's assurance the the generator will be properly <br />screened or fenced. <br /> <br />Feinberg replied that, due to the combustible diesel engine and the size of the generator, they feel <br />a fence would not be the appropriate option. They would prefer to paint the generator arid <br />provide additional landscaping. There was a $15,000 bond left in place after the earlier <br />development, and they intend to leav(: the bond in place until the Planning Department staff is <br />satisfied with the treatment of the generator. <br /> <br />Keany requested that,the 18" clay pots along the walkway be included in the drip irrigation <br />system. He agreed with Mayer regarding screening the generator and stated that he will add that <br />as a condition to this PUD. <br /> <br />F~inberg replied that, while he understands the Council's concern, Lot 1 and Lot 3 have different <br />owners. He requested that this condition not be placed on the PUD for Lot 3 due to the fact that <br />there is a bond in place that is more than sufficient to cover the generator treatment for Lot 1, and <br />the bond will remain in place until Planning staff is satisfied. <br /> <br />Keany replied that the condition would not be added to the PUD for Lot 3, but to the overall <br />replat. <br /> <br />Feinberg agreed to a condition that th'e letter of credit not be released until the screening was <br />acceptable to staff. <br /> <br />Davidson asked what the landscape coverage requirements were in the original approved PUD <br />for Lot 3. <br /> <br />Wood replied that Lot 3 was not broken out individually. Lots 2,3 and 4 were to have a <br />minimum landscape of26.9% overall. The proposed PUD shows a loss in greenscape on Lot 3 <br />and that would have to be made up by Lots 2 and 4, primarily Lot 2. The Planning Commission <br />felt that this variance was acceptable due to the fact that Lot 2 has more public visibility from <br />88th Street. <br /> <br />8 <br />