Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Screening Waiver Floodplain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews screening waiver for 121/Gillespie site; staff recommends irrigated living screen of eastern red cedars
Summary
A preliminary site plan for two buildings at State Highway 121 and Gillespie Drive prompted debate about screening, retaining walls and floodplain constraints; staff recommended an irrigated living screen of 8‑foot eastern red cedars where retaining walls exceed 5 feet.
City staff presented a preliminary site plan Aug. 18 for two industrial/office buildings at the southeast corner of State Highway 121 and Gillespie Drive and requested a waiver to the city’s standard masonry screening along the southern property line where the site abuts residential lots across a heavily forested creek and floodplain.
Staff said the site is bounded by a treed floodplain corridor and that the nearest proposed building edge is about 300 feet from a residential property line; the southern driveway and loading areas could be as close as about 170 feet. Because of topography, a retaining wall up to 9 feet tall may be required along roughly 1,000 linear feet of the rear property edge. Given the floodplain and existing vegetation, staff recommended approval of the waiver conditioned on an irrigated living screen of eastern red cedars at least 8 feet tall to screen the loading areas; where the retaining wall is 5 feet or taller, the living screen must be located on top of the retaining wall.
Planning staff noted a legal requirement in Article 16.14 that loading and dock areas be screened from residential properties and said that requirement cannot be waived; the requested waiver pertained to the masonry screen type and location. Commissioners questioned how the living screen would be located relative to the retaining wall and whether trees or irrigation could be installed in or adjacent to the floodplain. Staff said floodplain rules limit development in the treed corridor and that removing trees within the floodplain would generally require mitigation and possibly tree payments; final engineering and flood studies are completed at later plan stages.
Commissioners also asked whether eastern red cedars make an effective year‑round screen; staff said the species is on the city’s recommended plant list and noted they are evergreen and can reach 15 feet. Commissioners raised additional technical concerns — including the potential for tree roots to affect retaining‑wall performance — and asked staff to follow up with the city arborist or erosion control engineers if necessary.
A motion to approve the item “as recommended by staff” was made by Commissioner Bronski and seconded by Commissioner Ollie. The transcript records the motion and discussion but does not record a final roll‑call vote in the excerpt provided.
Staff said detailed engineering and flood‑study work occurs at later permit steps and that any changes required after final engineering would return to the commission for reconsideration.
