Laserfiche WebLink
�� 5.5 Non-zoning requirements (e.g., for Suilding Codes, storm water management, etc.) have <br />� c been part of PUD approvals in the past, but they should be removed from the PUD <br />�c process, relying instead on the established approval processes. <br />� c 5.6 Secause the Comprehensive Plan allows (perhaps even encourages) buildings up to 3 <br />� c stories tall in this location and others like it, Planning Division staff recommends <br />� c establishing a specific building envelope but does not recommend further restricting the <br />� c size of building that could be developed on this site in the future as long as parking <br />� c requirements continue to be satisfied. <br />11 <br />11 5.7 While not addressed among the standard parking regulations, the Planning Commission <br />11 recommended a requirement to incorporate bicycle parking facilities as well as to <br />11 improve pedestrian circulation around the traffic light pole in the sidewalk adjacent to the <br />11 site. The revised site plan includes the requested bicycle parking and indicates an <br />11 expansion of the sidewalk facility within the County Road S right-of-way. <br />11 5.8 Although the anticipated dental office user in the southern end of the proposed building <br />11 has patient privacy concerns with an entrance directly from the County Road S sidewalk, <br />11 the building is being designed in such a way that windows in that part of the structure can <br />11 be replaced by an entrance as tenants change in the future. <br />�� 5.9 Signage for the development should not be considered with the PUD application; signs <br />�� should instead be consistent with Code standards, which require a Master Sign Plan for <br />�� multi-tenant properties like the proposal. <br />�� 5.10 The storm water management plan for the project may need further development; this <br />�� need not be finalized in the GENExAL CoNCEPT phase of the PUD process. <br />1� 6.0 REVIEW OF REVISIONS <br />�� Sased upon comments received at the March 23 meeting and the April 20 work session, <br />�� the applicant has made the following revisions to the project: <br />�� 6.1 A curved wall has been incorporated into the building design that removes the structure <br />�� from within the traffic visibility triangle, as was previously proposed. The added design <br />�: of the curve creates an attractive building wall at the intersection of County Road S and <br />�: Lexington Avenue. <br />�: 6.2 The revised plan (similar to the previous design) supports an entry from either the County <br />�: Road S or Lexington Avenue side of the building should the tenant mix be favorable to <br />�: such an inclusion. <br />�: 6.3 The building shifted north from zero to 7 feet to include a greater setback adjacent to <br />�: County Road S. Conversely, the setback for the parking lot adjacent to Sandhurst <br />�: Avenue was reduced from 7 feet to zero. Landscaping will be provided and maintained <br />�: by the applicant, but a portion of the landscaping is now located in the Sandhurst right- <br />�: of-way. An additional building modification reduced the northern portion of the building <br />�� adjacent Lexington Avenue form 10 feet to 4 feet. <br />�� 6.4 Trees and shrubs have been added in the landscape plan for additional aesthetic buffering <br />� between the west parking lot fence and parking lot. The two parking lot islands have <br />been widened to accommodate a tree; larger islands were proposed versus an additional <br />PF09-003 RCA 051109.doc <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />