2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 15, 2001 Page 3 location of the two access poin#s in relation to each other. There is a straight route from one to the other which may encourage cut-through traffic from Eastwood Road to County Highway 1 Q. A mare indirect route through the parking lot may discourage cut-through traffic or at least rninimize the speed of this type of traffic. Platming Associate Atkinsan noted the building elevation drawings depict tlie Iocation of light fixtures on the exterior of the proposed building. The site plan, however, :does not show any other lighting on the site. He advised the City Code does nof: require lighting in parking areas, but it may be beneficial if the proposed Zighting on the stcvcture does not adequately provide light for the parking areas. Piaru�ing Associate Atkinson;sta:ted Staff.would recommerid that if,= parking lot lighting is utilized, either through the proposed burld�ng 'lights or additional ;paiking lot lights, that it be consistent with the City Code pertainirig to h`gh�ing and glare. He suggested the applicant be asked to address the issue of lighting. '`�'�: � .��.�� Planning Associate Atkinson explained the site currently'lias a low ly�ig ar�a that catches runoff from adjacent properties, mainly , from the southern portion of the'',Sil�er .Lake Commons apartments. Development of the site will alter the curre�t flow of water; so �t;.�s imperative that a proper drainage system be put in place to handle =ad�t�na� water runaff. from the increased impervious surfaces as well as existing runoff from ad�acent pxoperties. ,;; �-' � Planning Associate Atkinson advised that.according;to the grading plan, the site will continue to provide a water detention pond at the southernmost portion of;the property. The parking lot is shown to be constructed with a slight slope to drain stormwater away from the building and into areas of pervious green space and the pond; ori the srte which is encouraged by Rice Creek Watershed District and consistenf�yvith its "best management practices" philosophy. The parking lot is equip�ed with a spillway ta,allow wate��o flow�,tb �the pond without being impeded by the curb along, tTie:perimeter of �the parking area: ``��ater from the Silver Lake Commons will likely run along�the `:common prop�q�;�mezto areas of pervious green space along Highway 10, given the gradirig of the tarea unmediakely north of the proposed building. Rice Creek Watershed District does not rieed',`to rev�ew�`t�lits �evelopment as it falls well below the minimum acreage threshold , t � 5 °� �'�� . � �;` - - £.. #.vc %Sa,; M P Plannirig Associate At�nson�po�ted out that according to the proposed site plan, several mature �� trees�will be removed Tlie ��pTicants, however, have indicated that they will save aIl remaining txees that are not located'��irr :t�lie proposed parking areas or building footprint, which would be j ap�iroximately sixteen ��=fi) mature trees, The applicants will also be addin�g ten (10) potentialla .shr:ubs around the pen�neter of the structure and six (6) Hosta shrubs around the base of the .� ;-,,., proposed sign located along County Highway 10. , :.. �Planning A"ssociate Atkinson reviewed Chapter 1121.09, Subd. 12 of the Zoning Code, which addresses fiiie screening of parking lots that abut residential property. He noted the property line adjacent to the Silver Lake Commons is proposed to conta.in six (6} parking spaces, which would require compliance with this provision. He explained the City Code allows two (2) options for screening: a fence, which must comply with the provisions established in Section 1103.08; or, a greenbelt planting strip, which must comply with Section 1103.48 Subd. 6{a). He noted that the apartments do have a fence along the property which meets Code requirements. While staff