EX DD 2 CP Authorizing Resolution

of the requested variances on the interior of the site, that would, in effect, create a special teason due to the hardships imposed upon the applicant on this particular site and to allow for all of the uses which were requested. In addition, as a result of the adoption of the Developer’s Agreement and the Ordinance, the lot sizes were fixed as was the density and location of each of the proposed uses. With respect to the parking surrounding the office building, there were four (4) variances required. As to the number of parking spaces, Mr. Gurkovich testified that in his experience in a general office building, one parking space for every 250 feet of gross space would be more than sufficient. He indicated that the request complied with the ordinance in that the plans provide for an alternative of a parking deck if the same should become necessary. With respect to parking in the front of the building, because of the size and shape of the building, its proximity to the wetlands and the inability to provide parking on the southwest portion of the property because of the state’s ownership of that area, a large portion of parking would have to be to the front of the building. He did, however, describe that the parking lot would be approximately 20 feet below the nearest townhouse, that there was extensive landscaping both at the border of the two uses and throughout the parking lot utilizing large and dense trees and providing adequate protection for all. With respect to the size of the parking stall] proposed, which is going to be 9°x18’, there would also be a two foot overhang from the front of the car into the landscape area and he again described this necessity as a result of the location and area permitted for parking and that would afford substantial protection to the surrounding areas and as a result of the overhang, allow for the vehicle to be appropriately situated within the parking stall. With respect to the impervious coverage for the office building, it is proposed that there be 53.73% wherein the ordinance allows 50% as a maximum. Mr. Gurkovich looked at the overall site and found that overall amongst all the uses there would be less that 50% impervious coverage and would fit within the statutory requirements. He further testified again as a result of the constraints upon the office parking and in order to achieve 400 parking spaces, there was a

ious coverage and would fit within the statutory requirements. He further testified again as a result of the constraints upon the office parking and in order to achieve 400 parking spaces, there was a slight deviation above the ordinance maximum to that which is proposed. With respect to all of the other variances that would be required he said that due to the constraints upon the site and that every effort had been made by the entire design team 7