CCP 04-28-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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