03-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

John Trautz March 1.2004 Page 4 c) The west facade of the retail strip needs to be attractively dcsigncd and landscaped to minimize its appearance as the back side of a building. d) We understand that with this onentadon, signage with faces perpendicular to Highway 12 will be critical forthe strip center. A monument sign would be acceptable along 12. Signage for each use on the west wall of the retail strip would nfll be acceptable. e) A drive-thru at the north end of the retail strip would be feasible. If this was a coffee shop, the proximity exists for pedestrian/customer access to a pond overlook, plaza, or outdoor seating area at the northwest comer of the strip retail building Parking Layout and Capacity . To gain staff support, your site plan needs to incorporate adequate parking for the uses proposed on the site. Future uses that require parking in excess oi uat provided, ax not likely to be approv:d. The parking plan also needs to incorpoiates island for trees and green space. With a strip rel^ building oriented north- south. parking between the strip xtail and the Walgreens can be mox flexibly used as daily parking needs fluctuate. With asite plan that meets the parameters set out in this letter, we ax willing to consider the Walgreens model that the peak need for Walgreens is 60 parking stalls; wc arc not willing to vary from the parking rcquixment for other users on this site, be they office (1 stall per 200 ne' s.f. whex net=90% of gross floor axa), xtail (1 stall per 150 s.f. of net floor area) or xstaurant (I stall per 80 s.f. of net floor axa). Oxen Space . The City’s goal is still to have 25% of the site as green space. Given the Planning Commission's nearly unanimous comments that the cuirent plans do not pro vide adequate green space, as a minimum the xquired perimeter trail* viihin the property should not be counted as pan of the 25% requixment. Structural Coverage . In line with the Planning Commission ’s strong sense that the cuixnt site plan is too intensely developed, note that the zoning code docs limit any building site of less than 2.0 acres, whetherresidentialorcommexial.to 15%covera^bystructuxs. Your plan pxposcs 3 individual sues, each less than 2 aexs in axa, and two of the thxe exceed the limit. Lot 1 is at 17.7%, Lot 2 is at 13.2%, and Lot 3 is at 22.4%. Overall, the site should be limited to no mox than approximately 24, lOO s.f., but it cuner.tly is a: just over 29,800 s.f., or 18.6%. This is an indication that the current site plan is over- ambitious. Market Analysis . You have told us that fxe-standing xstaurant uses and fast-casual restaurant uses ex unlikely to be attracted to this site because of the lack of nxjftops. Ln assisting our consideration of the proposed conversion from office to xtail uses, we xquest that you provide clear and valid market information supporting your conclusions xgarding xstaurant uses.