Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of the Regular~Cil Meeting, June 8, 1987 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CASE #87-18 (Cont'd) <br /> <br />Council questioned the 40 ft. height of the <br />air-supported structure; asked the Planner if this is <br />the standard height for this type of structure. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Miller stated he has not verified a standard height for air-supported <br />structures; however, since they are commonly used he could research the matter. <br /> <br />Fire Chief Winkel commented that Council may consider reviewing the Uniform <br />Fire Code relating to this type of structure before approval is granted; he <br />advised there are requirements such as, distance of air-supported structures <br />from existing buildings and storage. <br /> <br />Moved by Hansen, seconded by Sather, that Case H87-18 <br />be continued to the Regular Council Meeting of July 13th, to allow the Fire <br />Chief time to review the Uniform Fire Code, as it relates to air-supported <br />structures, 'and to provide the Planner time to review typical heights of these <br />'structures. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />CASE #87-19; MINOR <br />SUBD. & SITE PLAN <br />REV. DAYBRIDGE CNTR. <br /> <br />Council was referred to Planner's report (5-28-87) and <br />Planning Commission minutes of June 3rd; recommending <br />approval with several contingencies. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Planner Miller reviewed the conditions of the recommended approval and <br />explained the Minor Subdivision. He advised the City required a 20 ft. easement <br />be provided, granted to the City, between the City property and the proposed <br />Daycare site. Miller noted that the easement would have to be maintained and <br />was granted in lieu of partial park dedication; he was unsure if the park <br />dedication had been fully resolved. <br /> <br />Planner explained the temporary access drive that will be provided to Hamline <br />Avenue and eventually will serve the entire site; applicant advised the south <br />side of the access drive will have permanent curb at this time and the other <br />side would be blacktop only. He noted that no grading plans have been received <br />yet and upon receipt they should be evaluated relative to drainage, tree <br />removal and grading. Miller also reviewed the single access to the site from <br />Highway 96, centered on the east property line; this driveway will also serve <br />the future development to the east. Both access drives have been reviewed by <br />Glen Van Wormer, Trsffic Engineer, and have been determined acceptable in te~ <br />of sight distances and separation from the Hamline/Highway 96 intersection. <br /> <br />Miller reviewed the sign proposal and advised the applicant had assured the <br />Planning Commission members the sign would meet code requirements and, <br />therefore, no variances are being requested at this time. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Miller discussed the landscape plan and suggested some berming at the front of <br />the site and additional plantings at the rear of the site where the property <br />abuts the'Townhouse Villages. The applicant has evaluated the plantings at the <br />rear of the site and has a plan to present this evening that addresses the <br />matter. <br /> <br />Council was referred to the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting <br />relative to screening of the mechanical equipment on the roof of the proposed <br />daycare center. Miller displayed a site-line visibility diagram, which <br />indicates that the rooftop mechanical equipment will be visible from the second <br />level of the townhomes, unless screening is provided at the property line or on <br />the building. He stated the applicant has indicated that they are agreeable to <br />working with staff to provide adequate screening of the rooftop equipment. <br /> <br />There was discussion regarding the screening of the trash containers. Miller <br />explained the containers would be located near the front of the site and stated <br />that the applicant had not provided a plan for screening but would be willing <br />to do so. <br /> <br />Dwight Chestnut and Randy Petersen, Daybridge Daycare Center, displayed photos <br />of the site showing site lines on the property looking south toward the <br />townhomes. They stated they are agreeable to providing additional plantings and <br />to work with staff on this issue. <br /> <br />... There was discussion relative to the operation of the daycare facility. <br /> <br />Council questioned if there'would be a crossover provided on Highway 96. <br /> <br />Randy Petersen stated there would not be a crossover, which was the reason for <br />the access drive to Hamline Avenue. <br />