PC 102401 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED r- The Planning Commission determined to continue Items 6.a. and 6.b. to the November 14 meeting. Commissioner Arkin stated that he would like to give a couple of comments on the Growth Management Report to staff. Commissioner Roberts commented that all of the decisions on this project are trade-offs, and one of the things they have wanted to see are environmental considerations and LEED measures. She stated that the issue related to the height of the screening provides the opportunity for implementing these measures. She advised that she feels the additional two feet, six inches is not going to make any difference, because they still will be dealing with the screening. She stated that she feels the applicant has tried to mitigate this by having the three-story buildings at the back of the site. She advised that she supports the modification. Commissioner Arkin asked if staff members were present at the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Swift advised that staff was present at most meetings during the master plan PUD process. Commissioner Arkin stated that he does not understand why some people thought the total height of the building was 48 feet when it was 62 feet. Mr. Swift provided information regarding the process that transpired during the approval of the Master Plan and Design Guidelines. .~ Commissioner Arkin stated that he feels the three-story building looks like a 62-1/2 foot building, and from one dimension it looks like a four-story building. He further stated that because of the setback from the street and the site location he feels the height is appropriate. He noted that he sympathizes with the neighbors because they thought they were getting something different. He commented that if you look at the height of the building relative to the backdrop of the ridge, it is not major. Commissioner Harvey stated that he recognizes that there are two issues with the building height; one being the 2-1/2 foot increase, and the other is difference between the perceived mechanical height and what the actual mechanical height is. He advised that with this building it is important to take the total height into account. He stated that the diagram that did a comparison of the absolute heights of the buildings vs. the old building was great, except that it didn't include the additional 14-112 feet of equipment and screening, and the mechanical equipment on the old building. He stated that he recalls that to the parapet there was roughly an II-foot delta between the new building being lower than the old building, and the next logical step would be that this is probably the difference between the perceived mechanicals on the new buildings to the actuals to say that they are roughly the same absolute height, and that makes him not want to be real concerned about the height of the building. He commented that in looking at the visuals from Diamond Court that shows the new plantings, he would think that there would be a significant impact from the buildings on the view of the ridge. He further commented that he does not see how one floor can be eliminated from the three-story buildings and still have a project. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he feels that applicant has worked with the neighbors in a collaborative effort. He further stated that the neighbors probably did not think about the equipment screening, but he wished that would have come out in the meetings. He commented PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24,2001 Page 10