Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />March 26, 1986 <br />NEW BUSINESS - Public Heari <br />PUD-80-15-2D, Pimlico Associates (HiVest, gnc.) p royal of <br />Application of Pimlico Associates for delandscavinw sand site <br />elevations, wall design, P g~ <br />final building center, <br />design for an approximately 26,200 square feet shopping <br />to be located on an approximately 2 acre site located on the <br />south side of Pimlico Drive, approximately .1 mile east of the <br />intersection of Pimlico Drive and Santa Rita Road. Zoning for <br />the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) District. <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of <br />this application. Mr. Swift stated a wall has been designed for <br />the south side whiceninets MTersWift'reportedmthat aoletterowas <br />for functional scre g <br />received and distributed to the Planning Commission from a <br />resident who waschpldrebearesouthof schoolgfor Easterhand the <br />week all of the <br />everyone has left on vacation. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked if staff has any problems with the <br />removal of the Eucalyptus trees. Mr. Swift stated staff does not <br />and is requiring landscaping on the property. <br />Commissioner Innes asked about the five items mentioned in the <br />letter of Mr. Hatman and whether or not thlicatbontdoesmnotsand <br />these five items. Mr. Swift said this app <br />perhaps the applicant can respond. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Associated Professions, reviewed their proposal <br />Randy Schlientz, <br />and urged approval. He presented a color and material board or <br />consideration. Commissioner Lindsey asked about ingress and <br />egress off of Pimlico. Mr. Schlientz reviewed this. <br />Commissioner Wellman discussed the materials on the fascia and <br />other parts of the building. Mr. Schlientz reviewed the <br />elevations and orientation of the buildings with the <br />Commissioners. <br />Commissioner Innes asked about the rear access. Mr. Schlientz <br />indicated that most of the small shop keepereodlento bekinrear <br />delivery or access because it requires two p p <br />attendance at all times. <br />Mr. Schlientz respondeastdiscussedtandoshown totthe•homeownersd <br />that the soundwall is <br />(with their approval). Commissioner Innes asked Mr. Schlientz i <br />he agreed to extend the soundwall to Santa Rita Road. Mr. <br />Schlientz stated they have not agreed to do so. <br />Commissioner Innes discussed the architecturTO ertpeSibiMTty of <br />the proposal with the adjacent residential p p <br />Schlientz stated all roof mounted equipment will be screened and <br />the center was designed to be compatible with the adjacent <br />- 3 - <br />