My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:34:37 AM
Creation date
11/29/2004 9:42:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/02/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
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
Case #10: <br /> <br />Request for Final Site plan Review of Gateway Retail Building, Ramsey <br />Town Center 3'''~ Addition; Case of Ramdance, LLC <br /> <br />Co~mnunity Development Director Frolik advised Ramdance, LLC has submitted a site plan for <br />the development of a retail building on the northwest quadrant of Outlot I, Ramsey Town Center, <br />proposed to be replatted as Ramsey Town Center yd Addition. The site is zoned TC-2 and retail <br />uses are a penmtted use. The applicants are proposing to construct a 12,000 squm-e foot retail <br />store in the northwest quadrant of the site, which will be refe~Ted to as the Gateway Retail <br />Building. This building has increased in size by 1,000 square feet over what was presented at the <br />time of preliminary site. plan review. It is staff's understanding that waste storage for the <br />Gateway Retail Building will be accommodated indoors. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik indicated with respect to the Town Center Design <br />Guidelines, it is noted that no public parks are identified for this TC-2 sub-district. Small ~oup <br />sitting areas and a mix of pavement and plantings are encouraged. The Landscape Plan reflects <br />that there will be benches and planters on the Sunwood Drive and parking lot sides of the <br />building. The architectural features of the building are nmlti-sided and include diversity in <br />texture, color,' shapes, projections, recesses, height, and transparency at street lev'el. The selected <br />materials include EIFS integrally treated with color, split face CMU block, precast concrete, <br />brick veneer, pre-finished metal accents and awnings. She explained at the time of Preliminary <br />Site Plan review, the building contained access doors on the south elevation only, facing the <br />parking lot. The guidelines recommend access doors facing public streets, which in this case <br />would be Sunwood Drive. The revised Building Elevations, dated September 24, 2004, now <br />include two-way corner entrances at the east and west ends of the building. This desig-n feature <br />provides access doors on Sunwood Drive and meets the intent of the guidelines. A revised <br />motion has also been recommended for the approval of this final site plan. <br /> <br />Councilinelnber Elvig inquired if there are any concerns with fire safety and indoor waste <br />storage. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Kapler replied this would relate to the volul*nes and type of waste <br />materials. It would be controlled .through the fire code. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson advised the language should be strengthened for the Best <br />Management Practices that each site needs to use within the Town Center as a condition of the <br />AUAR mitigation element. The developer has been asked to provide additional details and they <br />need to do something to increase the amount of infiltration and decrease the amount of water <br />quality treatment that is provided because it is a brand new outlet to the Mississippi River. He <br />indicated page 279 of the Councit packet, the fifth bullet point under Storm Water Plan states <br />"...Please provide details on the BMP's for this site...' He suggested this be called out in the <br />motion to make it more clear that this would be based on approval by the City Engineer and will <br />be brought back as another item the next time this is discussed. <br /> <br />P38 <br /> <br />Ci~ Council~October 12, 2004 <br /> Page 24 of 30 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.