Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />June 12, 2002 <br />Page 7 <br />Staff noted the applicant had elected to construct a fence for screening purposes, and City <br />Ordinance required "such a fence shall provide a solid screening effect six feet in height." <br />Staff recommended a condition requiring that such a fence be extended to the north to <br />screen all proposed and future parking expansion areas, as current plans do not show the <br />proposed fence extending along the entire area of parking. In addition, Staff stated the <br />applicant had provided some additional landscaping in an attempt to soften the effect of <br />the fence, as City Ordinance directed "exposed fences shall run a maximum length of <br />fifty feet between landscaping areas or clusters" (Sec. 3.subd. 4.S.5.e.2.b). At this time <br />plans showed the fence located on the lot line, with landscaping located on the church <br />side of the fence. <br />Staff indicated the current landscape plan showed some trees within ponding and drain <br />field areas and the Environmental Board had recomn* desuch trees be moved to <br />appropriate areas. The Board also recommendedfconsideration of alternate tree species <br />choices, which were described in the memo from Environmental Specialist Marty <br />Asleson. In addition, the Board had recommended hat a tree iriy ntar ? and tree <br />preservation plan be submitted for the site. <br />Staff noted plans showed a 13' X 10' trash enclosure located, at the northern end of the <br />parking area. The enclosure was 6' -8" him anc e structed of concrete block painted to <br />match the principle building color. <br />With respect to signage, staff state, <br />Lakes Sign Ordinance limits instill <br />ways: maximum of 32- square <br />than 10 feet to any property lin <br />an had yet been submitted. The Lino <br />+hal signage in die Rural zone in the following <br />eh <br />signage area., �amaximum of 8 feet high; no closer <br />Staff noted there° <br />for the north s <br />Staff stated t <br />unresolved, per <br />these concerns. All " "e. <br />Engineer prior to any Ci <br />gin fee required. There are no trails planned <br />a numbe <br />nee <br />gineering issues that remain incomplete or <br />tudenski; the memo dated June 7, 2002, detailed <br />ssues are to be resolved to the satisfaction of the City <br />ncil review. <br />Staff indicated Rice Creek Watershed District had issued a TWAFFA for this project, <br />pending completion of five administrative items. <br />Staff noted the Environmental Board reviewed this application at their May 29, 2002, <br />meeting and recommended approval with some changes; the Memo from Marty Asleson <br />dated June 6, 2002, detailed these changes. In general, recommended changes center <br />around the following: <br />1.) Submit a tree inventory and tree preservation plan. <br />2.) Increase infiltration and storm water practices, particularly around parking areas. <br />3.) Alter tree choices, and move some trees out of water infiltration areas. <br />4.) Use of green parking in future parking expansion areas. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />