CCP 03-31-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #02-25: Preliminary Plat and Master Plan PUD Page 8 of 12 exc\ll:<led the requirements for landscape area by having 53.3% of the property a,s ~e area. Much of that landscape area goes to serve a,s a buffer between the Guidant Campus and the surroWlding residential properties, producing the additional benefit of a development with decreased visual impaCt on the residential neighbors. e Another amenity provided by the extensive landscape area is the provision of trails that would be ~' futfhe public to utilize. In conjunction with the park: dedication requirement in the plat, staff is currently reviewing the possibility creating better ties between the Guida>>t trails to the City's current trail system. 5. Setbacks All new coustruction would, ~withi':l tta.e, ~isfu1g ;!1'~ ~, wQuld Qot felLWr~, reduction of setbacks. The Buillling ()ffieial., has S1itedthat the' appliC3Ilt shouldcoritfuue' to maintain a 60 foot clear arolllld buildings J, D, E, and I. Staff \uIs inclu4e9 Ulis as' a condition for approval of the Master Plan. ' Ph~ing ," . (j; , Phasing of theW9PO~ ~~Pl/S iqlprovements with the Qec;esSllfY trnffic imrm;weQltIDts will be ,acd~,jii$\1e.' ,~ reviewing the Mlister Plan pmposed sphedule of improvemJ", ,J:n, ts" .$I.t"f met Wl"'tll .(Jut, . dllnt ' representatives ,and has ~ a revised l!chedule wbich l!b.o),1ld'betler manage the imP8.l:t of iJlcrea,sed tnUli.c c~ed by the gmwiug Guidaut Catnpus. A revised phasing plan is attached for your llWiew. ' 7. PlJrloog The 2!o$ngCo.de requires that all Qffice buildingS provide a pa.rking ratio ofl stall per 2Sfl~feet,ll1ld!IU m;u:lufacturing activities providearl!tio 00 stall per I,OOOl!q\lare 'ft!et.The Ulblebelow shows a comparison of parking req~ by the ZtInirtgCode and the parking provided in the proposed Master Plan. 'In order for the 'applicant to meet the parking requirementthe~ would need to be either a red\lctiOIl iJl 1aI}.~ area or increase m t4e,~~ ofthep;!1'king nunps. Neither option would be very desirable to the neighboring proPerty owners and It is staffs detenniIlation that an altero,ative SQlution would be in the'b6&t interest of the City. Although the master plan shows a deficit of 653 parking spaces fmru tbeZouing Code reqUirement, the benefit to the City is 653 less vehicles that will be driving on are,a streets, wbi~ in turn mllY help ease any traffic issues in the area. The applicant has also _ beencolI$ulting Metro Commuter Services in efforts to reduce single occupant vehicles .