07-21-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Conlin said that, when US West reviewed the landscape plan they submitted, they realized it was a generic plan and was submitted in error. Conlin said US West wanted to comply with the City’s intent. However, US West would like to come up with a plan satisfactory to the City that would minimize the impact on the parking. The site plan takes up a 30-foot space. The monopole takes up a nine by eleven foot space. The 30- foot by 30-foot site plan would take up all the parking spaces in that lot. The pole takes up five spaces out of the twenty-nine spaces in the parking lot. There are about twenty to twenty-five people who park in that lot. The loss of the parking spaces would have a negative impact on that site. Conlin said US West wanted some help on how to handle this problem. Conlin stated that US West would consider a landscaping screen or a cedar fence. Pine trees surround the property. Conlin said they would be willing to augment those trees. Conlin said US West would like the Planning Commission’s help to minimize the impact on the parking and still landscape the site. O’Brien stated that, to be frank, offering any advice without seeing the site would be difficult. Conlin said she had photographs taken of the site showing the pine trees, but they were not available tonight. The trees are about six feet tall with spaces between them, but they will grow. O’Brien said he thought US West should submit a new site plan that is more definitive than the one provided for this evening. The plan US West provided does not tell us anything. O’Brien stated it is unfortunate that they submitted the original site plan because that plan was the basis for the approval. Conlin said she agreed and apologized for the mistake. Conlin said she was interested in hearing the Planning Commission’s concerns. Would the Planning Commission be amenable to landscaping the parking lot itself to screen the installation as opposed to taking up parking spaces with screening? If so, Conlin said she could come forward with a plan next month. Conlin asked if the Commission was more interested in directly screening the monopole itself by putting a fence around the monopole and then screening the lot. Livingston said that without a site plan he could not visualize the site. It would be helpful if US West could provide a site plan. Conlin said she thought that was reasonable, but she would like to know about the Commission’s major concerns. Baker said he remembered that, when we approved this site plan, a question came up about losing parking spaces. The US West representative said they could live with the loss of parking. It was obvious to Staff and the Planning Commission that parking spaces were going to be lost. We made that statement, but the applicant proposed it and we accepted it. Conlin said US West took responsibility for the mistake. It should have never been presented to the Commission. Baker said, on top of that, the item was postponed once and once the US West representative simply did not show up for the meeting. Baker said he remembered the details well. Baker stated, if US West is going to propose something, it would have to be something more than just a fence around the pole. Zisla said he would like to see photographs of the site. Teague showed slides of the site. O’Brien said moving the landscaping away from the pole makes some sense. The farther the landscaping is from the pole, the less obvious the pole becomes. Zisla said moving the landscaping out toward the street would landscape the whole parking lot. O’Brien said he did not understand why Conlin thought they would need a fence. Conlin responded we would need a fence for security if the City required it. Zisla said the City Forester should probably look at the site. Conlin thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\07-21-98.WPD 4