Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to Planning Commission <br />Planning Case #02-25: Preliminary Plat and Master Plan PUD <br />Page 8 of 12 <br /> <br />exceeded the requirements for landscape area by having 53.3% of the property as <br />landscape area. Much of that landscape area goes to serve as a buffer between the <br />Guidant Campus and the surrounding residential properties, producing the additional <br />benefit of a development with decreased visual impact on the residential neighbors. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Another amenity provided by the extensive landscape area is the provision of trails that <br />would be open for the public to utilize. In conjunction with the park dedication <br />requirement in the plat, staff is currently reviewing the possibility creating better ties <br />between the Guidant trails to the City's current trail system. <br /> <br /> <br />5. Setbacks <br /> <br />All new construction would remain within the existing area and would not require <br />reduction of setbacks. The Building Official has stated that the applicant should continue <br />to maintain a 60 foot clear around buildings J, D, E, and I. Staff has included this as a <br />condition for approval of the Master Plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6. Phasing <br /> <br />Phasing of the proposcd campus improvements with the necessary traffic improvements <br />will be a critical issue. After reviewing the Master Plan proposed schedule of <br />improvements, staff met with Guidant representatives and has created a revised schedule <br />which should better manage the impact of increased traffic created by the growing <br />Guidant Campus. A revised phasing plan is attached for your review. <br /> <br />7, Parking <br /> <br />The Zoning Code requires that all office buildings provide a parking ratio of I stall per <br />250 square feet, and all manufacturing activities provide a ratio of I stall per 1,000 square <br />feet. The table below shows a comparison of parking required by the Zoning Code and <br />the parking provided in the proposed Master Plan. In order for the applicant to meet the <br />parking requirement there would need to be either a reduction in landscape area or <br />increase in the height of the parking ramps. Neither option would be very desirable to the <br />neighboring property owners and it is staffs determination that an alternative solution <br />would be in the best interest ofthe City. <br /> <br />Although the master plan shows a deficit of 653 parking spaces from the Zoning Code <br />requirement, the benefit to the City is 653 less vehicles that will be driving on area <br />streets, which in turn may help ease any traffic issues in the area. The applicant has also . <br />been consulting Metro Commuter Services in efforts to reduce single occupant vehicles <br />