Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 02 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 12, 2017 Page 7 of 29 Sheets says this proposal has a lot of waivers. Can you give us direction on what the Code says in terms of why and when we should grant waivers? Can you explain why each of the four waivers is a benefit to the City? Zuccaro says the Code and CDDSG have guidelines. One is usable open space and common park area in excess of public use dedication requirements. Staff looks at whether the modification or waiver is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the development. The applicant has an opportunity to show whether they are going above and beyond in the design that provides some benefit to the City. The applicant is providing an enhanced design for the people working in the business park as well. The City does promote use of the transit station and multimodal transportation options. Staff sees the trailhead, parking, and connections as a design amenity for different users. The enhanced design also justifies the parking reduction in addition to the parking agreement. The City likes less parking because it is better for water quality and more open space. The business park overall will maintain over 30% open space. This lot will be under %, but the business park overall will be over %. Sheets says there is the assumption that people will use this new trailhead and not drive to work. What will change? Will signs be installed? Zuccaro says it is private parking and no right for public parking for recreational use. This formalizes it and allows the City to put it on our maps, which will promote more use. Staff feels it is important to formalize the public parking as well as the trail connection. The City will get ADA connections instead of dirt. Regarding the other waivers, allowing the maximum building area to go from 70% to 76% is not a benefit to the community. The applicant is providing an enhanced design of the property. Staff sees design in amenities. Sheets asks about the 40' setback which will change to 9.5'. I am concerned using a conservation easement for parking. It seems counter -intuitive. Zuccaro says Highway 36 widens extensively at their property line. While only 9' back from the boundary of the ROW, there is a Targe extension of the ROW. The intent is to not bring development up to the highway. They are close to the 40' requirement, but technically are not because Highway 36 ROW jogs in and out. Staff feels it is still meeting the intent of an adequate setback. Pavement does not go into the conservation easement, just landscaping. The parking lot could be built without landscape screening and left natural, and then request a landscape waiver. Staff does not want the applicant to go lower on the parking ratio. The ITE manual lists 2.76 spaces/1000 SF as the average for office parks. Staff wants to work with the applicant on the best way to fit parking spaces in and still have a small impact. There are two parking setback issues. The first is the southern row of parking where the yellow and green lines and conservation easement are. The second parking waiver is adjacent to Highway 36 ROW. The last waiver regards the entire business park maintaining the 70-30% split, but for this lot, they will not meet the standard. Sheets says the expansion is small relative to the expansion in order to meet the parking requirements and other issues. Instead of approving the two phases, is there a way to approve just one phase? Zuccaro says Staff has discussed this with the applicant who can explain their reasons. Rice says the parking numbers do not make sense. The Code is 4 spaces/1000 SF and they currently require 318 spaces. They have 79,500 SF which means 318 spaces. Zuccaro says they currently have 324 spaces. They want to go from 324 spaces to 325 spaces and their current ratio to 2.7 spaces/1000 SF. Rice says if we apply the 4/1000 SF ratio to both phases, my math says they need 480 spaces. They are providing 325 spaces. They are short 155 spaces. They hope to make up this number because of mass transit and shared parking. They are asking for a waiver from the Code. Zuccaro says the applicant can provide employee numbers, promotion of alternative modes, and shared parking. The average is 2.7/2.8 spaces/1000 SF. O'Connell says will the shared parking agreement be utilized for Phase 1. Zuccaro says it will be for Phase 1 and does not need to be executed. O'Connell asks if the 8 public parking spaces after hours are included in the total parking.