Planning Commission Minutes 2010 02 25

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2010 Page 4 of 19 be off site locations, or cash-in-lieu, or some combination thereof. Because of this uncertainty, Staff has requested a note be placed on the GDP that states “Public land dedication of 12% will comply with section 16.16.060.B of the LMC.” There aren’t any proposed school sites, or other public and quasi-public facilities. Planning Commission input and recommendations on the desired methods of satisfying the dedication requirement is requested within this hearing process. D. The proposed internal circulation, which is privately owned and maintained, is shown on the GDP. Primary ingress/egress points are indentified. The proposed Campus Drive extension is off-site and therefore not within the GDP property for this application. McCartney stated the GDP of the ConocoPhillips application complies with the “procedure and applicability” established in LMC Section 17.72.030. McCartney continued with the following discussion: According to Section 17.72.190, yard and bulk requirements also shall be specified on the GDP, to be in general conformance with, in this case, yard and bulk requirements for commercial district and under the CDDSG. The GDP includes a yard and bulk requirements statement which states heights in excess of CDDSG requirements are not approved by this GDP. Noted setbacks conform to the CDDSG. McCartney discussed Section 17.28.110 of the LMC as follows: “requirements may be waived or modified through the approval process of the planned unit development if the spirit and intent of the development plan criteria contained in section 17.28.120 are met and the city council finds that the development plan contains areas allocated for usable open space in common park area in excess of public use dedication requirements or that the modification or waiver is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the development plan…” He reported the proposed waivers are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the development plan. The proposed plan establishes planning areas that provide a buffer that is in excess of that required by the CDDSG. This extended buffer coincides with the proposal to cluster the buildings in the center of the campus. (Clustering of buildings is strongly encouraged in the CDDSG). The proposed setbacks for the planning areas requesting height waivers (planning areas A, C, D and F) are as follows: 400 feet from the northern property line; approximately 2,300 feet from the western property line; approximately 1,350 feet from the eastern property line; and approximately 300 feet to the southern property line. The minimum setback required by the CDDSG is 50 feet. The applicant has chosen to cluster the development to provide more visual open space, therefore designing the site with vertical floor area instead of sprawling the floor area throughout the property. McCartney stated staff appreciates the proposed clustering effect of the development and acknowledges this design amenity complies with the spirit and intent of the development plan criteria contained in section 17.28.120, including, among others, elements related to