08/08/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 13 towards the adjacent residential uses primarily in the northeast and northwest corners of the Target Parcel. Landscaping treatment within these areas should provide year round screening from adjacent residential areas. Coniferous plantings other than the White Pine currently shown and/or fencing should be applied to these areas. Mr. Grochala noted that lighting details have been provided. The applicant is proposing to use a decorative fixture similar to City campus lighting. The layout and spacing of the fixtures does not provide the effect intended. Staff recommends that decorative lighting fixtures be spaced at 75 to 100 foot intervals and staggered on opposite sides of each main drive aisle and along the fronts of buildings. The parking lot fixtures are shoe box style with downcast lighting which is desirable to control spill -over lighting. Lighting levels meet the ordinance, except along the rear of Kohl's. The ordinance requires 0.4 foot candles at the property line where adjacent to residential. This lighting level will need to be reduced. Mr. Grochala noted the City Engineer's comments in a letter dated July 6, 2001 and he asked that the City Enigneer address those comments. Mr. Powell stated the majority of the Egineering c draiange plan, storm sewer computations and er.. o includes the proposed storm sewer. To information must be provided for the storm sewer, the pipe. Additionally, included in the previous sumbittal was the use of a broad not shown on the grading plan. s related to the details of the e stated the grading plan ity ith this review, additional luding the size, length, and slope of tions that were received in the eir. The location of the weir is still Mr. Powell noted to date the Rice project. They have no replacement. He indica the Rice Creek Watershed tershed District has tabled the review of this AAFA nor have the approved the wetland d in the agenda packet was a copy of the fax from which lists in detail the informaiton that is missing. Mr. Powell stated a detailed transportation impact study was completed by Steve Elmer of TKDA for this project. At the request of the developer, a second signalized intersection was included in the study as an option. The Anoka County Highway Department has stated that they will not permit a second signalized intersection for this site. The second intersection must be a right -in right -out situation. The developer has stated that the second signalized intersection is absolutely necessary for this site and this matter still needs to be resolved. Mr. Powell stated copies of the approvals from the necessary review and regulatory agencies, including the Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Anoka County Highway Department, must be submitted. Mr. Powell stated TKDA has reviewed these plans a number of times and did not anticipate any additional changes.