Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 04 08

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 16.16.060.8 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 once GDP, to be in general conformance with, in this case, yard and b requirements for commercial district and under the CDDSG. The G cludes a yard and bulk requirements statement which states heights in e ss of CDDSG requirements are not approved by this GDP. setbacks c orm to the CDDSG. McCartney discussed Section 17. 1 the LMC as follows: "requirements may be waived or modified through app oval process of the planned unit development if the spirit and intent o e velopment plan criteria contained in section 17.28.120 are met and the cit cil finds that the development plan contains areas allocated for usable ope ace in common park area in excess of public use dedication requirements or t the modification or waiver is warranted by the design and amenities in rporated in the development plan..." He repo - •roposed waivers are warranted by the design and amenities incorp• •evelopment plan. The proposed plan establishes planning are. .t provide _ Duffer is in excess of that required by the CDDSG. This ext- s. buffer coin ides wi proposal to cluster the buildings in the center of the • •us. (Clustering of b Idings is strongly encouraged in the CDDSG). The propo setbacks for the planning areas requesting height waivers (planning are. , C, nd F) are as follows: 400 feet from the northern property line; approxi tely 2,300 feet from the western property line; approximately 1,350 eet 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