11-19-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Report Silverview Estates PUD Development Review and Preliminary Plat November 19, 1997 • Page 4 • The development stage plan had not received approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the Planning Commission discussion on August 20. The Watershed District approved the required permit on October 22, 1997, as reflected in the attachment to this report. • The City's Engineer(Rocky Keehn, SEH)has reviewed the submitted plans for drainage design. His comments to the City on the drainage design are contained in a memorandum dated November 11, 1997. Three issues were identified that will need to be addressed: lack of distance between in the inlet and outlet for the NURP pond on Lot 3, ensure that the culverts under the St. Paul Waterworks right of way function properly, and ensure that emergency overflow from the NURP pond on Lot 4 is directed away from the underground garages and toward the street. These issues are addressed as conditions of approval to Planning Commission Resolution No. 515-97. • While the latest submittal included a proposed lighting plan for Lots 2 through 4, the plan did not give a clear indication of fixture types and their location and information on building-mounted lighting. The applicant has been advised and will make the necessary adjustments prior to November 19. •• Lighting information, including site photometrics, was submitted for Lot 1 at the Planning Commission meeting on August 20. The applicant has been made aware, however, that on-site lighting is an area of concern, particularly as to how the lighting under the canopy will be shielded downward. In an attempt to address this issue, the applicant has provided staff with revised photometrics for site lighting that incorporates the use of a light baffle within the canopy fixtures. It is staffs position that the light-enhancing capabilities of the prism-type lenses on the canopy fixtures is not desirable, and efforts should be made to determine whether such fixtures can be recessed into the canopy or whether a shoe-box type fixture should be employed. The applicant will be prepared to address this issue at the November 19 Commission meeting. • Snow storage areas were not identified on the original plan, but the latest submission does identify locations for snow storage. However, the snow storage area to the south of Lot 4 is shown within the wetland. The applicant will modify the location of this snow storage area so that it is not in the wetland. • The most recent submittal identifies sign type for Lots 2 through 4. However, no sign detail was submitted for Lot 1. The Planning Commission requested at its August 20 meeting that the free-standing sign for the Holiday Stationstore include brick columns that flank the text area of the sign, similar to the brick columns used for signing on Lots 2, 3 and 4. The applicant has provided this information which is attached to this report. In addition, the applicant will affix 10' sign setbacks on the site plan. •