2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Mezzenga Devetopment Review January 17, 2001 Page 3 addressed this issue with Mr. Mezzenga, who indicated that the only lighiing to be us�d for the parl�ing iot would be provided by huildir�g-mounted floodlights. These lighis will need io comply with ihe Zoning Code pertaining to lighiing and glare. {Chapter 11�3 of the Zoning Code.) Draina�e: The lot at ib64 Greenfield Avenue, and those that surround the subject property, are essentially flat with litile if any change in elevation. The proposed development witl add a relatively minimal area of irnpervious surface, Because of that, the lack of elevation change, and the requirement of perimeter curbing, staf�does not consider stormwater runof�to be an issue for the adjoining properties or the City's stormsewer system. Even so, the parking loti shall be constructed with a slight slope to drain stormwater toward the north and east (away from the building) into areas of pervious greenspace. This is a fiechnique encouraged hy Rice Creek Watershed District ar�d cansistent with its "best management practices" philosophy. The perimeter curbing shall be consiructed with breaks or surmountable points io allow for the stormwater to pass through, thus allowing water to infiltrate and recharge the aquifers rather ihan being discharging untreated directly into City stormsewers. (Rice Creelc Watershed District does not need to review this development as it falls well below the minimum acreage threshold.} Landscaping; Staff explained to Mr. Mezzenga ihe need to provide for landscaping and to revise the plans to show areas of landscaping and the species and quantities used. He has consented and agrees that landscaping �vill be needed on the site. Staf�would suggest that if the Planning Commission has no other issues concerning tl�is proposal, that a recommendation of approval could be forwarded to the City Council with a stipulation that the Iandscaping issue be resolved prior to Council approval. The City Forester will review the plantings to ensure compatibility with 1Viounds View soils az�d make recommenda�ions if necessary. All non�landscaped pervious areas shali be sodded. Because of the ciose proximity of the home ta the south an Greenfield Avenue, the need to pravide for screening and buffering is importazzt. Tl�is can be accomplished with a row of plantings, such as lilacs ar evergreens, or with the construction of a fence. While stafiwould prefer a more natural buffer, the drawback is that it would take years to fully screen the building when a fence would provide for immediate screening. �taff has been in contact with Mr. Zwirn, the resident to the south, and Mr. Zwirn has revxewed the site plans. Staff has not, however, received any comments from Mr, Zwirn regarding his preference far screening, if any, between the two lots. The Commission discussed at length the potential need for fencing between ihe proposed building and the Iot to the west (Tom Thumb.) Staf�would again discourage the requirernent of a privacy fence between the two lots for safety and aesthetic considerations. If the pritnary desire is fio demarcate the property lines with secondaty effect of itnpeding pass-through pedestrian tra#�ic, staff would suggest a four-foot tall split rail fence or something simiiar which would be more visually appealing, less imposing and less likely io attract vandalism. Buildin� Exterior; The front building elevation indicates a one and a half story building wiih a hipped roof and covered entr-yway. The building exhibits an aesthetically pleasing, conte�-sensitive residential appeaxance,