Laserfiche WebLink
M>3*2889 - <br />April 18,2003 <br />Page 10 <br />• ••- «« <br />In stafTs opinion it is most critical to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the <br />north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood. It would seem less necessary to provide such <br />screening along the east side of the NE and SE buildings; a 6 ’ privacy fence along that north-south <br />lot line would probably detract from the view of the building. We would rather see enhanced <br />landsciq)ing along that east-facing slope. <br />The B-6 ordinance has a table listing the landscaping value to be required based on a percentage of <br />the project value. The value of the development would need to be determined and then the minimum <br />landscape value is determined. Wally Case of DSU, Inc., the City’s landscaping consultant, would <br />complete an estimate of the landscaping value based on the ordinance. <br />Most of the existing trees on the site will be removed for construction. The plans submitted appear <br />to have been designed to potentially protect several mature trees that are located along the north <br />boundary, leaving some buffering to the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The landscape plan should <br />depict the existing vegetation that is to remain. <br />The applicants should address how the proposed plan takes into account at least the following <br />concerns: <br />- screening and buffering between the office complex and the adjacent Sugar Woods <br />neighborhood... <br />- screening and buffering between the office complex and the commercial properties to the <br />immediate west... <br />- potential for relocating existing trees on the site... <br />- landscaping methods to reduce the visual impact of the building as viewed from offsite, <br />especially the view of retaining walls... <br />The trash enclosure is proposed at the north end of the site, 3-sided brick construction with a south­ <br />facing access door. This location would appear to be practical and appropriate in the context of the <br />proposed site layout. It should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. <br />Site Coveraates, Whilethe B-6 standards do not currently establish a minimum green space vs <br />building vs impervious surface ratio, the site is proposed with the following coverages: <br />Lot Area <br />Building Coverage Area <br />Parking, roads, sidewalks, etc. <br />Greenspace <br />w/Proof-of-Parking <br />114,792 s.f <br />20,362 s.f (18%) <br />38,378 s.f (33%) <br />56,052 s.f (49%) <br />w/All Parking Built <br />114,752 s.f. <br />20,362 s.f. (18%) <br />45,878 s.f (40%) <br />48,552 s.f. (42%)