PC 102401 - Laserfiche WebLink

that from the neighbor standpoint, he could see where they thought they had a 48-foot tall ,--- project, but it is now 62 feet. He noted that that the height of the two-story building with the height of the equipment screening is 47 feet. He commented that he thinks that is the project the neighbors were envisioning. He noted that he appreciates the efforts ofthe applicant and the design team to include the energy efficiency measures and LEED standards, and allow space for photovoltaics. He commented that this is the kind of project that the Planning Commission has been asking for, but he cannot get pass the expectation of the community and neighbors, and they are not going to get what they expected. Commissioner Sullivan suggested that two additional feet be excavated so the building can be lowered. He stated that he is not happy with the 62-foot height and certainly cannot support increasing it an additional 2-1/2 feet. He suggested that other options be discussed. Commissioner Roberts stated that she does not feel the additional height makes a visual difference. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he also has a separate problem with the process. Commissioner Harvey commented on the possible options: removing one floor from the three- story building, or adding an additional building to make up for the lost square footage somewhere on the site that would then take up additional open space. He stated that while the buildings would not be as high, this could provide more opportunity to see the buildings. - Commissioner Sullivan suggested that the buildings could also be redesigned to make everything fit. Commissioner Roberts moved to recommend approval of the modification to PUD-98-07 to increase the maximum permitted building height by 2-112 feet, from 48 feet to 50-112 feet Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion. Commissioner Harvey advised that he is not ready to vote on the motion. The Planning Commission agreed to review the issues stated in the staff report on which staff has requested direction. I. Whether the tree mitigation plan is adequate. Commissioners Arkin and Roberts: No problem with the tree mitigation plan. Commissioner Harvey: O.K. with the tree mitigation; especially likes the informal arrangement of oak trees that creates a soft, natural entry. Commissioner Sullivan: He will support it, but the applicant is reshaping the entire site, primarily to reduce the visibility of the buildings, and the trees are being removed to do this. He is not completely comfortable, nor does he like that, but he will support the plan because the mitigations are going to be substantial. 2. Which rock wall plan is preferred? Commissioner Arkin: Will support the decision of the Planning Commission. The materials sample is better than that shown on the visual. Comfortable with deferring this item to the applicant. - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2001 Page 11