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