My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 08182020
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2020
>
PL PACKET 08182020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2020 12:42:46 PM
Creation date
8/12/2020 4:02:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5. The density, parking, and other aspects of the site constitute reasonable accommodations <br />within the expected range of PUD consideration. <br />6. The flexibility offered under the PUD, including setbacks, parking, and impervious <br />surface are reasonably consistent with other development in this area of the PUD. <br />7. The proposed PUD will accommodate reasonable use without negative impacts on <br />neighboring property nor on public improvements and services. <br /> <br /> NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the <br />City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff <br />report and approves Preliminary Plan for Amendment to the Silver Lake Village PUD as shown <br />on the plans submitted on July 23, 2020, at 3725 Stinson Boulevard NE: <br />1. Access-related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City <br />Engineer. <br />2. In recognition of other development sites within the Silver Lake PUD which were <br />developed at densities less than 40 units per acre, the City finds the proposed <br />residential density (44.7 units per acre) to be acceptable. <br />3. The City finds that the proposed 20-foot building setback along 38th Avenue NE <br />will not negatively impact adjacent properties and is therefore considered <br />acceptable (within the context of the PUD). <br />4. The City finds that the proposed parking supply (and the deficit based on Ordinance <br />requirements) is adequate to serve the parking demand generated by the proposed <br />apartment building. <br />5. The City finds that the limited size of the subject and target tenant base justify an <br />off-street parking supply which does not include covered spaces (within the context <br />of the PUD). <br />6. In consideration if the limited site size and previous site development conditions, <br />the City finds the proposed impervious surface coverage of 76.7 to be acceptable. <br />7. Impacts associated with the proposed impervious surface coverage shall be subject <br />to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. <br />8. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a lighting plan be submitted for review <br />which demonstrates compliance with City requirements. <br />9. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a signage plan be submitted for review <br />which demonstrates compliance with City requirements. <br />10. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, details shall be provided related to the <br />proposed trash enclosure design. <br />11. Issues related to grading, drainage, stormwater management and utilities shall be <br />subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. <br />12. The applicant enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary <br />securities required by it. <br />13. Consideration of comments of other City Staff.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.