Laserfiche WebLink
square feet of warehouse and manufacturing space), and it will accommodate a 47,000 square foot <br />future expansion to the manufacturing/warehouse area noted on the site plan. The exterior facing <br />finish on the building is proposed to be a combination of glass curtain walls, decorative and <br />standard concrete block. This project meets City Code requirements for lot coverage, setbacks, <br />architectural standards, landscaping, waste storage, and paved and curbed off-street <br />customer/employee parking spaces and loading areas. Ms. Frolik did note that Staff recommends <br />the landscaped areas be developed with irrigation systems. The drainage plan is acceptable to the <br />City but must be reviewed by the Anoka County Highway Department, and also, a permit must be <br />obtained from the Lower Rum River Water Management Organization. City Staff recommends site <br />plan approval contingent upon compliance with City Staff review letter. <br /> <br />City Engineer Sankowski noted that a small portion of the site will drain to the County ditch, and <br />the policy is that it be no greater than the pre-development condition. Mr. Jankowski stated the <br />parking lot meets that criteria, but the City will look to the County to review that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated that he doesn't mind City Staff recommending irrigation systems, but <br />he feels that it should be up to the developer and he doesn't want this to appear to be policy. He <br />also questioned whether the matching of the roof, outlined under "Architectural Standards" in the <br />City Staff review letter, was a requirement of City Code. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik responded that the roof matching was not a requirement of City Code. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer also inquired why the 110-foot setback was still being used. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski replied that the City Council needs to ratify the changes to that setback. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer was dismayed that it's been two months and thoroughfare .setbacks haven't <br />yet been presented to the Council. He questioned whether the 20-foot wide landscaping area <br />should be on the property or includes the road right-of-way. He also noted that McKinley Street <br />should be renamed to be consistent with Ramsey street names since it is unclear whether McKinley <br />Street will ever be a through street from Anoka. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated it is not certain McKinley won't be a through street. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden suggested the street could again be renamed McKinley if it ever goes <br />through. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated them will be businesses on that street which would need to get stationery, <br />business cards, ads, etc. changed if a renaming occurs in subsequent years. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that it would have to be a numbered street to be consistent with Ramsey <br />streets. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer reported that Anoka has stated that they don't want that street to be a <br />through street. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski agreed that they have stated such but noted that they have also changed their minds. <br />He felt it wouldn't be decided until the last piece of property is developed. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik advised that Business Park 95 has received final plat approval with McKinley Street, <br />but she noted that it has not yet been recorded. <br /> <br />Commissioner LaDue felt that since it is not within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to <br />rename streets, he felt a recommendation should be made and/or move on with the case. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/September 5, 1995 <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />