Laserfiche WebLink
foot landscape buffer through the proposed easement is the best option. He also added that the <br />average buffer for the entire site is over 8 feet. <br />Ms. Carr asked if the proposed easement agreement would come back to the Plan Commission. <br />Mr. Lai pointed out the staff suggestion in the staff report to eliminate the easement and remove <br />3 parking spaces in order to maintain the 8 foot buffer. They can afford to lose 3 spaces and then <br />staff does not have to deal with easement documentation and enforcement. Mr. Evans stated that <br />the lot is already irregular in shape and while they do exceed the required parking, operationally <br />the office building will require the amount of parking provided and the spaces will get used. He <br />added that they are eliminating some on-street parking. Ms. Carr asked about the option of <br />purchasing the land. Mr. Evans stated that is an option. <br />Mr. Halpert stated it sounds like there are three options; eliminate parking spaces and the <br />easement, provide the landscape easement and keep the parking spaces as shown, or purchase the <br />land and keep the parking spaces as shown. One of the options will have to be selected. Mr. <br />Evans stated they think those parking spaces will be needed and used. <br />Mr. Lai stated there is some concern about enforcement. When the required fence is installed, it <br />may not be appealing. Since the site could afford to lose 3 spaces, and due to proposed hours of <br />operation allowing for shared parking, parking is not as much of a concern. We would like to <br />minimize the amount of impervious surface also. The staff recommendation would be to <br />eliminate the spaces and the easement. <br />Staff presented the staff report and explained the reason for each Conditional Use Permit. All <br />drive-through facilities in the GC – General Commercial District require Conditional Use Permit <br />approval. Exceeding the maximum height for a building is only allowed through obtaining <br />Conditional Use Permit approval. <br />Staff also noted that based on discussion with the City Engineer, staff would recommend <br />additional cross access between parking lots on the eastern side of the property. This could be <br />accomplished by a slight redesign and would result in the loss of 2 to 3 parking spaces. <br />However, this could help alleviate any potential traffic backup at the proposed traffic signal at <br />Delmar and Delcrest. <br />Staff recommended approval of application P100034 for a drive-through facility with the <br />conditions set forth in staff report Attachment A. <br />Staff recommended approval of application P100035 for an office building that exceeds the <br />maximum building height allowed with the conditions set forth in staff report Attachment B. <br />To address previous questions from the applicant regarding the conditions pertaining to sign <br />height and area, Mr. Greatens stated that staff was considering what was most appropriate for <br />that area including sign material. However, perhaps 8 feet in height is a more reasonable <br />maximum height. Staff is willing to increase the maximum sign height to 8 feet. Keith Steiner <br />asked if the sign area pertains to the face of the sign or the overall sign. Mr. Greatens stated it is <br />the sign face. <br />tm;šE <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />