Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />.6. <br /> <br />. <br /> <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 additioU<lI <br />benefit of a development with decreased visual impact on the residential neighbors. <br /> <br />Another amenity provided by the extensive landscape area is the provision oftraiIsthat <br />WOllld be open for the public to utilize. In conjunction with thepaJ:k dedipatjon <br />requirement in the plat, staff is currently reviewing the possibility Cre{lfu!.g beUllf tie$ <br />between the Guidal:1t trails to the City's c.urrent trail system. . <br /> <br /> <br />S. Setbacks <br /> <br />All new construction would remain within the elCisting <!l"ea w.d wowd, UQt ff1LlJi,re <br />reductioll of setbacks. The Building Official has stated that the applic;mt snouIdCQ:n:tmlJ,e <br />to mllintain a 60 fQ(lt clear around buildings J, D, E, aI1,d 1. Stp.ff.~ inclWlAAful$ <IS-a <br />condition for approval of the Master Plan. . <br /> <br />Phl!Sing <br /> <br />Phasing of the proPQsej! campus improvements with the nece$Sa)."y tratliciJppmJ{~ . <br />will be a criticafis~ue. After reviewing the Master Plw.PfQJXlsed.$;~ule' Qf <br />improvements, staff met with Guidant representatives and has creatlef;l'<!c.revis~ schedule <br />which should' better manage the impact of increalied tr~ffic (;fel!tftd 'bythegrowi,ng <br />Guidant Campus. A revised phasing plan is aUached for yOur review. <br /> <br />7. Parking <br /> <br />The Zoning Code requires that all office buildings provide a P<!l"kit1g: ratio oft stall per <br />250 square feet, and all manufacturing activities provide a ratio oflst;lll per 1,000sqjl;l(e <br />feet. The table below shows a comparison of parking required by the Zoning CQd.e and <br />the parking provided in the proposed Master Plan. In order for the appliCant torneet Jhe <br />parking requirement there would need to be either a redu(;tiou in l;ll)IJs(;ape area or <br />increalie in the height of the parking ramps. Neither option would be very desirable to the <br />neighboring property owners and it is staff's determination that an altlill.l\lltive sollltiQn <br />would be in the best interest of the 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 ~a <br />streets, which in turn mllY 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 />