06/13/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 22 Staff stated the property was currently zoned SC, Shopping Center District. This designation anticipated the development of a single center generally under one ownership. There was no provision in the SC ordinance to allow zero lot line setbacks for parking or lots without frontage as proposed. Staff indicated in order to accommodate the development as proposed, it was necessary to process the application under the PDO, Planned Development Overlay District. Section 3, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance required a PDO to allow subdivision of lots for a single building and for the private roads proposed. This process allowed greater flexibility and consequently a more creative and imaginative design. It allowed flexibility in the internal setbacks, lot sizes, and in parking for combined uses and was the appropriate means for review of a development of this size and scope. Staff explained access to the site was proposed via an extension of was located on an adjacent parcel and would require acqu condemnation. An additional access was proposed to Lake Dri of the Apollo access. All accesses with Lake Drive (Cou approval of Anoka County. A petition for public improve pursue some of the design solutions regarding access. rive. This access the owner or ly 520 feet north ere subject to the submitted in order to Staff stated the City Engineer was in the process of con the traffic impact of the development. Improv lanes, by -pass lanes and signalization. traffic study that would identify ay include, but are not limited to turn Staff stated earlier plans proposed a tion� " 77`° Street. This connection had been eliminated. It is staff's opinion that circula line up, spacing of interse Target lot forces circulat. back into primary dri e aisle was poor. It appeared si = was poor in that the internal intersections did not rsection jogs may create conflict and confusion, the the ain drive aisle, some parking was designed to directly , and generally the access to the smaller retail/ restaurant sites odification this concern could be addressed. Staff stated the site desi _n± did not include any coordination of pedestrian access between uses, to the public roads or to the esidential uses to the north. Staff indicated while it was not intended that the design incorporate all elements of the Village concept it was staff opinion that pedestrian circulation could be better addressed and encouraged both within the site and around the edge of the development. At a minimum pedestrian access should tie into the proposed path proposed along Lake Drive. This would include sidewalks along the extension of Apollo Dr. with extensions north to the storefronts of the major stores and an access out to the northerly access that also ties into the sidewalks in front of the major stores. In addition, an access should be incorporated to the north on the east side of the development adjacent to the ponding. Some consideration should be given to internal access within the smaller retail area. The design as it currently existed was geared toward vehicle access and was unfriendly and truly discourages pedestrian use. Staff stated detailed plans had been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water management. The City Engineer had reviewed the information submitted and a copy of his