Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner Hovingh stated that ordinarily he would want large setbacks on a project; <br />however, he felt in this case that the architect had done such a g job that the normal <br />amount of setback was not necessary. In regard to Condition 4, e would allow the <br />landscape architect to work it out with the Planning Director. He would leave the rest of the <br />conditions as staff recommended. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti said her main concern is the question 0 the setbacks and the <br />possible effect it may have on the trees. She is not sure of the ef ect it might have on the <br />design of the project if it is changed around. In regard to parkin and Condition 23, she <br />would go along with staff's recommendation and felt that changes could be made sometime <br />in the future. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahem said she also would delete Condition 2 and feel at this point the trees will <br />not be endangered. However, in regard to Condition 6 and the nd, she would rather leave <br />it in tact for additional protection. In regard to parking, she woul not feel comfortable with <br />changing Conditions 22 and 23 as desired by the applicant, as the situation could change if <br />the applicant decides to sell the building. <br /> <br />. Commissioner McGuirk commented that in regard to the building tback he would go along <br />with the opinions of the architect and arborist, and felt that the s would be protected. <br />However, he did have some difficulty with the request by the app cant in regard to parking, <br />and he would want to go along with staff's recommendation. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hovingh, seconded by Co missioner Michelotti <br />recommending approval of Case PUD-89-l4-lD subject to the con itions contained in <br />Exhibit "B", with the following modifications: <br /> <br />o That Condition 2 be deleted; and <br /> <br />o That Condition 4 be modified to allow the landsca architect to work with the <br />Planning Director in regard to the choice of plant m terials. <br /> <br />ROLL CAl.l. VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Hovingh, McGuirk, Michelotti, and hairman Mahem <br />None <br />Commissioners Horan and Wright <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-92-26 was entered and adopted recommending pproval of Case <br />PUD-89-l4-lD as motioned. <br /> <br />Minute. Planning Commission <br />March 25. 1992 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />