06-12-2003 Planning Comm. Agenda

Home Browse Search

FROM :NRC FRX N0. :9525959837 Jun. 04 2003 03:44PM P8/11 A smaA area of ornamental shrub plantings is shown along the parking area around the north building of Lot 3. This punting is adequate, however, the space between driveway areas along the common boundary between Lots 2 and 3 would benefit by some additional landscape planting. Planning staff would recommend clusters of trees and shrubs, similar to that used along Country Drive. The central driveway is flanked on the west side of the drive by an open row of crabapple trees. A similar planting along the east side of the drive would create a more balanced plan, Future development along the east side of the driveway should be able to avoid intertering with that planting. Also on both Lots ,~ and 3, an interim landscape cover for the area of the future building is not identified, Planning staff would suggest that the area is planted with grass seed to control dust and minimize runoff until development pions are finalized. Finaiiy, the area north of the main Knox building on Lot 2 has no tree ar shrub plantings shown. While it is not necessary to plant this area in a way that would intertere with visibility, the addition of same plant materials would soften the impact of the buildings and pavement, and provide shading to the area. Si a e. The applicant's plans do not include specific signage for the PUp. However, a pyinn sign previously used by Knox along Country prive has been converted to identify Drywall Supply. It should be noted that this business wilt not have direct frontage on Country Drive. Planning staff would not recommend that additional pyinn signs be utilized by the occupants of the PUD. A preferable arrangement would be to allow monument~style signage slang the public street, in which case the PUD could be approved with an allowance for off site signage. An off-si#e pylon sign would not be consistent with the City's typical expectations for an industrial PUD. Utilities and Drainage. The City Bngineer has indicated that a number of questions and issues remain with regard to drainage and utility plans for the PUD. Staff has scheduled a meeting for next week wifh the applicant's engineers to review these issues. ~marv and Recammendatlon,e For a Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat, the Gity is asked to approve a plan that is welt-enough defined sa that the project can be built, and the details of the, project are evident to City officials, The submitted plans identify the layout of thr~ Ints, and'the location of buildings, but a significant amount of site development det~tl'is missing, Both planning antt engineering staff are unable to fully identify imparts of grading and drainage, utility servir~s, parking demand, nor. is it clear on the plan how tFie.•applicant intends to treat much of the ground.cover -pavement, gravel, grass or other 18ndscape cover. In additinh, •because this PUD is proposed to be developed in phases, plans. 79-