Agenda Packets - 2001/02/12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mezzenga Report February 12, 2001 Page 3 Drainage: The lot at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, and those that surround the subject property, are essentially flat with little if any change in elevation. The proposed development will add a relatively minimal area of impervious surface. Because of that, the lack of elevation change, and the requirement of perimeter curbing, staff does not consider stormwater runoff to be an issue for the adjoining properties or the City’s stormsewer system. Even so, the parking lot shall be constructed with a slight slope to drain stormwater toward the north and east (away from the building) into areas of pervious greenspace. (Refer to the arrows on the site plan indicating drainage flow.) This is a technique encouraged by Rice Creek Watershed District and consistent with its “best management practices” philosophy. The perimeter curbing shall be constructed with breaks or surmountable points to allow for the stormwater to pass through, thus allowing water to infiltrate and recharge the aquifers rather than being discharging untreated directly into City stormsewers. (Rice Creek Watershed District does not need to review this development as it falls well below the minimum acreage threshold.) Landscaping: The site plan indicates landscaping around the building and at both lot corners fronting County Road I. Mr. Mezzenga has indicated that these plantings would be twelve 10-gallon Arbor Vitaes which are typically about four feet tall. Staff has suggested that the heights of the plantings be staggered if possible for a better visual effect. The landscaped areas will be covered with western red Cedar mulch. Staff is also suggesting the addition of a row of four to six foot lilacs (or something similar) at the south property line to provide additional screening to the adjoining residence. All non-landscaped pervious areas shall be sodded. Fencing: Because of the close proximity of the home to the south on Greenfield Avenue, the need to provide for screening is important. This can be accomplished with a row of plantings, such as lilacs, or with the construction of a fence. Staff would prefer a more natural buffer, however the drawback is that it would take years to fully screen the building with plantings whereas a fence would provide for immediate screening. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Zwirn, the resident to the south, and Mr. Zwirn attended the Planning Commission meeting on January 17 to provide his input. The applicant and Mr. Zwirn are attempting to work out a solution that would be amenable to both parties. Staff would like to have this agreement in place and defined by the time Council acts on this development review request. The other issue regarding fencing is that there is a fairly significant number of people who walk across the currently vacant lot to get to the Tom Thumb store and Laundromat. Staff and the Planning Commission have suggested that a fence be installed to block pedestrian traffic behind the building for safety considerations and to discourage loitering and vandalism.