Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />March 10, 2004 <br />Page 14 <br />4. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels <br />and soils in adequate time for review prior to City Council consideration of the <br />application. <br />5. Sanitary sewer and water utilities in the private drive shall be City facilities, just as <br />they would if it were a public street right of way. <br />6. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid: 20 units for a total of $33,300. <br />7. A revised landscaping plan shall include: screening on the north and south property <br />lines and specific sod or grass seeded areas. City wetland seeding shall be included <br />and noted on the revised landscaping plan. <br />8. The project must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to <br />preliminary plat review by the City Council. <br />9. New building elevations shall be submitted to demonstrate an exterior finish of brick, <br />stucco and/or natural or artificial stone to meet the requirements in the ordinance. <br />Staff recommended continuing the public hearing and return to staff with direction <br />because there is so little room provided for buffering and screening on the periphery of <br />the site, that it may not be possible to provide it with the existing layout. On the south, <br />additional drainage work is needed as well, and this will affect the screening options. <br />Additional addition to building exteriors is needed as well regarding the materials. The <br />retention of trees is a good goal, and the proposal probably retains some additional open <br />space compared to normal standards. However, the proposal does not clearly justify the <br />planned unit development flexibility. <br />Ms. Lane expressed concern about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Studenski replied they <br />had spoken with the Police Department and Fire Department and the cul -de -sac was of <br />appropriate width for them to turn around in. <br />Chair Schaps stated he was seeing a lot of big buildings in a small space. He indicated he <br />was not opposed to large building, but he was opposed to having them up against lot <br />lines. He asked if they shortened up the cul -de -sac would that solve the lot line problems, <br />or reduce the amount of buildings. <br />Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. <br />Steve Schmitt, President of TSM Development, stated they were currently building this <br />same development in Coon Rapids. He stated he took the plan and added a three -car <br />garage, which was very well received. He indicated they had the same issues with <br />exterior design with the City of Coon Rapids. He stated all of the building he was <br />proposing to build would have a different front on them. He noted he was having a <br />difficult time with the 25% brick on the front though because of the third garage. He <br />stated it was his intent to bring in color pictures at the next meeting. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />