06/27/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 23 Staff indicated there were two wetlands located on the eastern portion of the site and one was proposed to be impacted which required approval of the Rice Creek Watershed. There were 752 trees on the site and 566 of these were significant based on their size and species. The grading proposed on the site would result in the removal of 437 significant trees and a total of 458 trees. Most of the trees on the property were concentrated in around the wetland or on the southwest portion of the site. Staff indicated wetland delineations had been completed but had not been confirmed. There were two areas of wetland identified on the property. One area was approximately 3.63 in size and the other 1.24 acres in size. The larger wetland was proposed to be totally eliminated and replaced with a storm water treatment and retention basin. Specific mitigation plans had not been submitted for the site however, all mitigation was proposed to take place off site. Staff stated the ability to fill and replace wetland area could have a significant impact on the site design therefore any final action by the City would be premature until the wetland issues were addressed through Rice Creek. Staff stated green space on the site was concentrated around the perimeter of the site and surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The landscaping pla calls for plantings within parking lots along drive aisles and surrounding the site. The overa plan was well done and provides a variety of plantings. Some plantings are shown within MDOT right -of -way, MnDOT had P�3�4 • indicated that they would not allow any work within their right of Staff indicated the critical portion of the landscape p was along the northern edge of the �:.- site, which was adjacent to existing residential uses. 8 m lan as proposed would provide a visual break but it would not provide a comp en. , articular attention should be paid to fully screening points where headlights wou `e. ssues and where loading docks were proposed. In some instances, fencin be th • ost appropriate screen. • Staff stated no exterior details had b for the small retail buildings or other freestanding uses. The appl d that they would commit to a certain design concept as previously pre ha not received specific language that addresses this issue. Previous discussion ere tha ;exteriors of the buildings were proposed to be a combination of masonry mate ri s including brick and rockface block with EIFS (stucco) sign bands and accenting. The decor" ve roof elements include standing seam metal that complement the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings were proposed over the storefront areas. Staff indicated because of the site layout all buildings should be designed with all sides finished with equal quality and attention to detail. Staff stated the Target Superstore used a combination of brick and stucco on the front which transitions to stucco and rock face block on the sides. The rear elevation was proposed to be painted CMU (concrete masonry unit). With the surrounding land uses, more attention needs to be paid to the architecture on the rear of the building. It would be very visible from 77th Street. There was a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, to be constructed of split face modular block. The wall did not appear to be of adequate height to screen either the loading dock doors or the trucks that were often parked in the dock area. The screen wall should be of sufficient height to substantially screen the dock area.