Laserfiche WebLink
#07-3250 ' <br /> � J�nuRry 11,2007 <br /> Page 10 of 12 <br /> Crii:ical to iilakiiig this work is the ability to nialce a11 turiiing movemeiits feaszble withiii the sii:e. <br /> The proposect comiectioi�. across tlle �iont of.the site requires awkw�.rd if not iinpossible i;uriung � <br /> . ilioveineilts due to�tlie actrte aiigle befi,veeu ilie `service drive' �uid the pa.rkiizg lot entraiice, A , <br /> �driver exitiiig the offiee eoilclos woulcl h�.ve severe diffieulty t�iriliiig to the west, wlule a driver <br /> eiiteriiig from tiie west would �iave siinilar, if somewhat less dif�iculty. This issue is called out <br /> by tlie City �ngiiieer in his Jaiivary 10 coinuients, aud izeeds to be �tdeqtiately adclressed. It inay <br /> ve�;y well reqttire.a complete ze-design of the coiulectioil. The lpplicant has cliosen the ctiirreiit <br /> proposal in hopes of avoiding havi�ig to Iower the eutire site aiz additional 2'-4' whicll may be <br /> necessary in order to make the coiulectioil fituctional while maint�iiling acceptable parking Iot <br /> grades. The costs oFsuch additional Iowering were the Uasrs for tlte applic�urt's resistance to this <br /> � suggestion in 2005. It also has implicatioils oii retauiulg wall heights, bLiildii�g exposures, ' <br /> draiiiage, etc. wlzich would have to Ue addressed: <br /> Pedestr�r'ara Access. Sidewallcs are proposed to coiuiect between the iiidividual units and the <br /> parkuig lots, as well as a continuous service w�.lk aloiig the walkout side of the buildings, and <br /> haiidicap raulps at�he southeast and ilort�iwest eiids of the site. Pedestrian accesses connectiiig _ <br /> Oroilo Woods a.izd the�office conlplex sidewalk, as well as a coruiectioii to the existing sidewalks <br /> abuttulg Higliway 12, are also provided. It was determined duruig the review of Oroiio Woods <br /> that walking trail connections to tlie northwest corner of the property had little value at tlus tune � <br /> because they would not connect to any existuig or planned trail systeni. � <br /> Landscaping <br /> The applicants have provided a landscape plan(see Eahibit C, Sheet L1-1). A brie£review of the <br /> plan suggests that it geiierally meets tlie illinimum requuements established for the B-d clisf�ict. <br /> Staff will be lookiug at this inore thoroughly to ensure that it xneets miniiilu�n caliper <br /> � requuements for trees, sod, uudergrouild sprinkler systems, interior parking lot laiidscaping, <br /> � screening and buffering of resideiztial areas, species variety and maintenance, etc. � Planning <br /> Con�mission shotild review the plan with the applicailts aud deternline whether there are any ' <br /> specific Iandscaping ueeds that are not addressed. <br /> Site Coverage/Open SPace Calculations , . . <br /> While tlle B — 6 staiidarcls do iiot cuzxently establisli ilZiiui�.11un green space and/or� building <br /> ' perceiltages, tlle City lias coiisisteiitly looked for a nuiumuiil of 25% green space. Aiso, the site <br /> exceeds the 1.99 acre requireiilent for struciliral coverage regulatioiis ,ai1d tllerefore is not ' <br /> restricted on buildiiig coverage. The peivious to iinpervious perceiit�ges Ureak down as follows: <br /> Impervious Area 1,45 AC . 55.1% <br /> �• Pervious Area 1.18 AC 44.9% <br /> Total Site Area � 2.63 AC 100% _ ' � ' <br /> Staff finds tlie open s�ace percentage or44.9% to be completely iillceeping witli the City's goals <br /> for the B-6 districfi. . � <br />