01-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

#07-3250 _ • JanuAry 11,2007 Page 10 of 12 .� Critical to making tlus work is tlie ability to make all t��rning movements feasible within the site. The proposed connection across the front of.the site requires awkward if not iinpossible turiung • movements due to the acute a.ngle beiween the `service drive' and the parking lot entrance. A driver e�citing the office condos would have severe dif,ficulty t�irniiig to the west, while a driver entering from the west would have sunila,r, if somewhat less difficulty. This issue is called out by the City Engineer in his January 10 coirunents, and needs to be adequately addressed. It may very well reqtiire a complete re-design of the connection. The applicant has chosen the current proposal in hopes�of avoiding haviiig to lower the entire site an additional 2'-4' which rnay be necessary in order to make the connection fiuictional while maintaining acceptable parking lot grades. The costs of such additional lowering were the basis for the�applicant's resistance to this suggestion in 2005. It also has iinplications oii retaiiung wall heights, building exposures, drainage, etc. which would have to be addressed: Pedestrian Access. Sidewalks are proposed to comlect between the individual tulits and the parking lots, as well as a continuous service walk along the walkout side of the buildings, and handicap ramps at the southeast and northwest ends of the site. Pedestrian accesses connecting Orono Woods and the office complex sidewalk, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abutting Highway 12, are also provided. It was determined during the review of Orono Woods that walking trail connections to the northwest corner of the property had little value at tlus time because they would not connect to any existing or planned trail system. Landscaping The applicants have provided a landscape plan (see Exhibit C, Sheet Ll-1). A brief review of the plan suggests that it generally meets the minimum requirements established for the B-6 district. Staff will be looking at this more thoroughly to enst�re that it meets minimum caliper requirements for trees, sod, underground sprinlcler systems, interior parking lot landscaping, screening and buffering of residential areas, species variety and maintenance, etc. Planning Commissioii should review the plan with the applicalits and determine whether there are any specific Iandscaping needs that are not addressed. Site Coverage/Open Space Calculations While the B — 6 standards do not currently establish ruuumum green space and/or buildiiig � percentages, the City has consistently looked for a minimum of 25% green space. Also, the site exceeds the 1.99 acre requireinent for structural coverage regulations and therefore is not restricted on build'uig coverage. The pervious to iinpervious percentages Ureak down as follows: Impervious Area 1.45 AC 55.1% � Pervious Area 1.18 AC 44.9% � Total Site Area 2.63 AC 100% � . Staff finds the open space percentage of 44.9%to be coiizpletely in keeping witli the City's goals for the B-6 district.