06/12/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 9 • Staff noted as shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees were proposed on site. Specifically, a mixture of Ash, Maple, Crab and Spruce trees had been proposed. • • Staff noted that three trees had been proposed within the site's stormwater pond. To ensure the trees survival, they should not be planted in an area of the site intended for ponding. Staff explained to visually enhance the site, it was suggested that additional planting be provided in the following areas on the site: • Along the off - street parking areas between sidewalks and the building foundation • At the south end of the row of parking stalls that abut the west side of the building (to screen loading activities from Apollo Road) • Within the off - street parking island west of the budding (to visually break up an expanse of parking area) Staff stated the Environmental Board had recommended that Oak species (a mixture of Burr, Red, and Swamp White) rather than ever ens e provided along the freeway and that existing cedars on the site be relocated and„re -used in yca eening location. Staff noted the standards for calculating the off - street parking requirements for office and warehouse uses are outlined in Section 3, Subdivision '5 of the City Code. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement was to use 90% of the gross building area. Staff stated a total of 37 off - street: o ' g stalls were required for the proposed use. The applicant's plan called for 51, stalls d significantly exceeded the minimum off - street parking supply requirement. Likewise, three handicap parking stalls had been proposed in satisfaction of applicable State requirements. y�� Staff explained tle applicant had indicated that the additional parking stalls (beyond that required by Ordinance) were necessary as occasional training sessions were to be held on site which would escalate par g demand. Staff noted the standards for-access and traffic circulation were outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code and illustrated in the table below. The subject property met all of the requirements of this section with the exception of the curb cut opening. It should be note that a property might exceed the curb cut opening standard with the approval of the City Engineer. Staff stated as required, a lighting plan identifying illumination levels on the subject site as well as fixture type details had been provided and had been found to be acceptable. Staff noted according to the Ordinance, the source of lights should be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. The Environmental Board had specifically recommended that downward directed, no spill lighting be used on site. APPROVED MINUTES