04-25-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WS-3080 April 18.2005 Pafi4or7 Parking In conjunction with the revised building layout, the parking layout has changed slightly and reducing the number of stalls provided from 103 to 102. The parking requirement of 3.S stalls/1,000 s.f. using 85% of the gross floor area requires 102 stalls (34,186 s.f / 1000 X .85 = 101.70), where the 102 stalls provided is adequate. Note that the 3.5 stalls per 1000 s.f. is a variance from the City’s 5.0 stalls per 1000 s.f. requirement for general office uses; this variance was approved for this site for office condo use in a prior application, and has support from staff as well as the City’s engineering and planning consultants. Easement Vacations At the time the senior housing site to the direct east was developed, drainage and utility easements were dedicated through this site to accommodate utility lines, as illustrated on Exhibit C. These easements do not fit with the site plan and parking layout of the applicants proposed plan and therefore have to be vacated. The applicants have proposed a drainage and utility easement over the entire common lot, but have not shown a driveway easement for ingress and egress for a future frontage road. This driveway easement should follow the proposed drive aisle of the parking lot, be a minimum width of 24’ and must be submitted as a separate document for filing, as it cannot be shown on the plat. This must be submitted prior to final approval by the City Council. Green Space The green space calculation of the original plan was 39%. With the site plan revisions the green space calculation in now 44.9% or 1.18 acres (including retaining walls) of the entire area of the lot, which is illustrated on attached Exhibit AA. The B - 6 district requires a minimum of 25% impervious surface. Even if the retaining walls were subtracted from the 44.9%, the proposed plan would more than meet the required 25%. Landscaping A major area of discussiem at the March 28,2005 City Council meeting centered on the proposed landscaping. Having not had a landscape plan at that meeting, the Concept Plan qiproval resolution specified conformance with the B - 6 zoning district landscaping requirements and dso required that the plan give ’’particular attention to bt^fering/screening design along the northern property boundary along the top tier of the proposing retaining wall design, and also along the eastern lot line adjacent to the Orono Woods senior housing development.” The intent of the City Council was to be sensitive to the residential uses to the north and east. A landscaping plan has been submitted as part of the Development Plan review and is attached as ^hibit R. Along the top tier of the retaining wall system along the northern property boundary the plan proposes 17 dwarf Korean lilac (24” in height), 5 Colorado spruce (6 ’ in height), 6 pago^ dogwood (6* in height), and 5 Austrian pine (6 ’ in height). Adjacent to the Orono Woods senior housing development is a native grass mix consisting of western tall grass prairie with a forbes mix and the incorporation of 3 Colorado spruce (6 ’ in height) and 5 River Birch (10 ’ in height). Staff finds that the proposed land^pe plan conforms with the B - 6 landscaping requirements, although the Planning Commission should discuss