12/08/2004 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2004 Page 7 Staff stated the plans currently show the property at approximately 18% impervious surface coverage; the R -1 zoning district requires that impervious surface coverage not exceed 65 %. He stated that access to the site is via an entry /exit driveway directly from Lake Drive and approval for this access must be obtained from Anoka County. He stated staff review of the access and circulation will depend greatly on the comments from Anoka County; those comments have not yet been received. He indicated that a minimum of 57 parking spaces will need to be maintained and the applicant is proposing 59 parking spaces. The plans show a minimal amount of sidewalk running from the parking lot to the front entry. An additional point of entry on the rear of the building does not have a sidewalk and a condition has been added requiring the provision of such a walkway. The applicant is proposing shoebox style lighting with downcast, in conformance to City standards. All signage would be subject to permit and approval based on the City's sign ordinance. The location of trash equipment is not shown on the submitted plans and the applicant will be required to indicate how trash will be stored and screened on site. The mechanical plans show multiple configurations for the air conditioning units on the north side of the building, making them visible to the street. A condition will be included that requires effective screening of these units. Staff explained that water and sanitary sewer service are not immediately available and the submitted plans depict a well and septic system. Staff and the Environmental Board have asked the applicant to examine the feasibility of moving the septic system from the rear of the property to the front of the property to maximize the separation from the shoreline. The City Engineer has reviewed the utility plan and the grading and drainage plan; several issues will need to be addressed by the applicant. In addition, the grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Staff advised the Environmental Board reviewed the project on October 27, 2004 and their recommendations include several limitations which will be incorporated into site plan review and will be conditioned or added to the development agreement when appropriate. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing for the project to allow the applicant to address the comments of the City Engineer, to allow receipt of comments from Anoka County with respect to access and circulation, and to allow the applicant to submit a revised landscaping plan. Chair Rafferty requested clarification of the comment by the Environmental Board for "adequate screening of shoreland and adjacent residences." Mr. Bengtson stated he felt their intention was to require applicant to provide some sort of visual barrier from the building to the actual shore, to minimize the impact that the building would have on the visual experience on the lake. Chair Rafferty asked if a split rail fence could be utilized by the applicant. Staff replied the type of fence is left up to the developer, as long as it meets all screening requirements. DRAFT MINUTES