Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rova and Mr. Bucheck explained the site plan features and the architectural standards of the <br />facility. Mr. Rova stated the units would not be subsidized and would house residents 55 or <br />older. <br /> <br />Edward Whitsitt, 5293 143ra Avenue NW, asked if there is a reason the garage entrance couldn't <br />be on the other side of the building rather than facing Flintwood. Mr. Bucheck explained if the <br />entrance is on the other side, a ramp would be needed and problems could be created for snow <br />removal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated the grade elevations going from the north to County Road 5 are <br />inadequate for drainage. He stated there is a problem with the distance between the entrance to <br />underground parking and adjacent residents. The problem could be corrected if the long wing of <br />the building went to the northwest and the short wing went to the south. Noise and traffic would <br />then be away from the neighbors. Mr. Bucheck stated the site is proposed as it is based on the <br />depression and grades. <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik inquired how much property would be gained with the realignment <br />of County Road 5. City Engineer Jankowski stated the intersection of County Road 5 and <br />Highway 47 would move approximately 150 feet to the north. The Dysprosium Street and <br />County Road 5 intersection would stay in the same place. <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik questioned if it would be possible to keep the building in the same <br />configuration but shiR it north to get the same effect as reversing the layout. City Engineer <br />Jankowski stated the building could be moved a certain distance to the north. He indicated the <br />highway improvement project would begin in the fall of 1999, and be completed in the summer of <br />2000. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jensen stated concern regarding the buffer zone for residents and the paved garage <br />access. She asked if the height adjustment would go over the code allowance for height. She <br />questioned if the intersection would be leveled out. She approved of the berming, however, <br />indicated concern regarding height perception. <br /> <br />Mr. Bucheck stated there is a 35 foot height restriction. Community Development Assistant <br />Walther indicated the building would be 39 feet at its highest level. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer indicated the City Code formula to measure building height is proposed to <br />be amended to the same one that is used by DNR. Community Development Assistant Walther <br />stated that if the City's definition is the same as DNR's, the variance would not be needed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson stated the reason for the height restriction is for fire protection. <br />Chairperson Bawden stated in a similar case, the motel, the fire department said height wasn't a <br />problem. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/August 4, 1998 <br /> Page 9 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />