Agenda - Council - 04/24/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-168- rear, and side yard setbacks established in the B-3 Business District. City Code requires a 20- foot ~een space area adjacent to all public streets, which this site plan meets. City Code restricts lot coverage to 35% of the lot area; the site plan for the retail center is proposing 14% lot coverage. Principal Planner Trudgeon explained the applicant applied for and received approval of a variance from the 30% impervious surface restriction required under City Code for property located within the Critical R/ver and Wild and Scenic River Overlay District. In accordance with City Code, all driveways, off-street parking, and maneuvering areas are proposed to be surfaced with bituminous pavement and finished B-6/12 concrete curbing. City Code requires a minimum · fy .... ..~.~ of 116 park~n~ spaces for the fac~hty. The s~te plan shows 113 parking stalls. Chmrperson N~xt reviewed the apphcant s response to the number .~f~a~= spaces being required indicating the City's requirement for 116 parking spaces .app~/,irs ~.i-be:.based on an assumed requirement of one space for each 200 square foot of.gr~'SSbuilding':~,~m~..The City Code states that the reqmrement shall be one parking space .for'each 200 square feet~:,~)£ retail floor space. Since the utility, room at the northwest corner of:-th~-~Building is 457 squar~':f~t,,.and the applicant is planning for at least nine 60 square foot-}estrooms, the retail floor easily be less than 22,600 square feet. The appticant:'~oposes that.ih~' 113 spaces currently shown meets City Code and will be adequate for any c°'hie-i~'Cable use~}c~-this site. :i,,' ? Principal Planner Trudgeon stated the City Code~_ specifies th[i:e~fe~or wall finishes shall consist of natural or prefabr/cated brick or stone ~oi~pre-cast concrete ~anels or some other material approved by the City Council. The building-eleYat/on plan indiCates that the exterior wall materials will consist of integrally treated 'concret~'"~aso~- units, f~:brick, and prefinished metal cap. The drainage plan appears to be 'generally ~CcePta~_,l.e:':..yrincipal Planner Trudgeon noted the issues related to access.from Highway 110: 'The site pian shows a future service road along the northern boundary 6[i.~e'si[e. This '[dea.-i} supported by staff. A provision will be placed in the developmen(~g%ement requiring fU~e dedication of the area as a roadway to the City. He noted the parks/Utility Director has rewewed the landscape plan and recommends the addition of an eight' lost wide bilious, path wi~: the 20 foot greenspace area along State Highway t0 and th~ ~ dr~ge ~d~'with an approved wetland mix. City staff recommends site plan hpprov~?Ontingent upo~h:~compliance with City staff review letter dated March 30,2001-;:and the appl~!car~.~t receiving a variance. Mr.--Wki~el stated they 'are a~'~?of the issues raised about the access and will consider r-elb'.C~ing the access to' one location~ t6 serve both sites. He stated they will work with Mn/DOT anabelieve this will be acceptable. Chairperson Nixt asked.if'any footage will be gained by relocating the access. Mike Supina}';.~(;Amc~n Construction Company representing the applicant, explained the changes in park~'rlgstalls that would result in a changed access point. Chairperson Nixt estimated that two additional parking stalls would be gained. Commissioner Reeve asked about the access point on Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Planning Commission/April 3, 2001 Page 14 of 18