Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2020

Home

Darren Lazan, DC Holdings, replied that the dotted rectangle is a symbol identifies that area is available in another plan. He noted that area is the buffer area and is shown, enlarged, in another plan in their submission. Commissioner Anderson asked for details on the crosshatched pattern to the north. Mr. Lazan stated that they share in the concern for the plantings. He stated that it is a challenge to meet the ultimate plantings for a larger buffer within a smaller buffer area. He noted that landscaping is the largest budget item in the development. He stated that the number of the plantings required by Code, for this application, is in violation of another area of the Code which calls for sensible and responsible planting. He stated that any additional plantings would not result in greater canopy but would instead result in poor health for the trees and plantings. He stated that this revised plan adds boulevard trees, trees in the northwest corner, and adds the maximum responsible density to the northern property line. He stated that from the beginning they objected to provide the buffer, as the responsibility in the buffer falls to the more intense use. He stated that the adjacent property is zoned commercial and therefore that would be the more intensive use and when developed, that commercial property should provide additional buffering. He recognized the existing single-family homes to the north and noted that is why they are agreeing to provide the buffering proposed. He displayed the grading of the site which identifies the berm along the western and eastern property lines. He asked that the Commission consider the buffering as a whole. City Planner Anderson stated that in a perfect world they would have 35 feet on center between trees, but the intention of the density transitioning is to create a buffer between uses and planting the trees in that manner would not provide adequate screening. Commissioner VanScoy asked if a commercial use would need to provide additional screening. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl clarified that would not be required because of the PUD. Commissioner VanScoy stated that it appears that part of the issue is that there is more space behind the homes to the south compared to the north. Mr. Lazan stated that there is a larger drainage easement along the south. He stated that the development could potentially be moved a few feet south to create a little more separation. He stated that because the homes to the north are 300 feet from the property line, they did not expect this concern. He was unsure that another ten feet would provide more balance. Commissioner VanScoy stated that an additional ten feet would be more standard for transitioning. Mr. Lazan confirmed that he could look to determine if that could be done. He commented that this is a very tight site layout. Planning Commission/ February 6, 2020 Page 6 of 18