Laserfiche WebLink
Board Member Lewis stated that his intention is not to interfere, but to enhance the area. <br /> Motion by Board Member Valentine and seconded by Board Member Hiatt to recommend <br /> Option 1; to include Staff's recommendation that excluding the two front yard trees, the <br /> remainder of the plantings be the responsibility of the developer as a stage one improvement; and <br /> to explore the potential for additional plantings around the rim or perimeter of the area between <br /> Block One Harvest Estates and Block One Harvest Estates Second Addition. <br /> City Council Liaison LeTourneau suggested adding the recommendation that the plantings be the <br /> responsibility of the developer in the phase one improvement clause also. <br /> Board Member Valentine accepted that as a friendly amendment. <br /> Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Stodola, Board Member Valentine, Hiatt, Bernard, and <br /> Lewis. Voting No:None. Absent: Board Member Bentz. <br /> 5.03: Consider Landscape Plan Associated with a Site Plan Application for Parkview <br /> East; Case of PSD, LLC <br /> City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. <br /> Board Member Stodola asked if the developer could put shrubbery in along the perimeter. <br /> City Planner Anderson replied that the City is trying to stay clear of shrubbery installations on <br /> the boulevard area for maintenance reasons. <br /> Board Member Lewis inquired about the ratio of parking spaces to apartment units. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill stated the number of parking spaces are more than <br /> the City would require and there are tuck under garages in the apartment building. He stated that <br /> the applicant feels that they are meeting the parking needs from a marketing perspective. If the <br /> issue becomes a storm water question, the Board will be addressing it. <br /> Board Member Lewis stated that the planting proposal seems unimaginative to him and talked <br /> about the back wall of the parking stalls. He indicated that there was no photometric plan <br /> included in the proposal. <br /> City Planner Anderson agreed and stated that plans for internal landscaping and photometrics <br /> have not yet been received from the applicant. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill stated that currently the architectural plans don't <br /> match up with civil engineering plans. <br /> Board Member Hiatt asked if an internal landscaping plan can be required as part of their <br /> proposal. <br /> Environmental Policy Board/March 30, 2015 <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br />