CC 07-11-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting July 11, 1983 Pagil Five is 125', center line to center line; the Pine Tree proposed separation is about 110'. It was suggested thst this access could be posted "No Left Turn". 'f it presents a problem in the future. Trsffic eSU.atee quoted - by Benshoof were 136 trips (in and out)/day in Phase 1; sdditional 290 trips/day in Phaee 11 and 111. Miller noted these are a bit higher than thoae of Von Wormer. The building heights in Phases 11 and 111 were queried. Miller explained that these buildings may technically require' a height variance; ordinance haa mechanica to allow variance in height by providing additional aetback to acco.modate it. Long range maintenance of the ponding area was queried, if lots will have separate owners. Weir said protective covenants aaking them obligated to one another for the pond. driveways, utilitiea, etc. will be required by the lender; maintenance coats will be spread among the property ownera. .Treatment of roof top structurea ~as discussed. Weir said they propose to locate them along the centar lina of the one-story buildings, raise tha parapet to help screen the. (16" above roof line") and pain t thell tha same color as the bui lding exteriors. Weir noted that they will be located to the south of the buildings; will not be visible to County ROad E; noted that their concern is the view froll the Phase 11 and 111 buildings. Miller said it is not his intent to ignore the ordinance require.ent that roof top units be screened; feels screening can be accomplished in other ways than by "fencing", such as cluatering the units and locating the. strategically to minimize visibility. Miller noted that the intensity and concept of the lsndscape plan is good; applicant will be required to submit a final landscape plan to include detailed planting around buildings, suggested minor replacement of trees along County Road E, etc. The treat- ment of the driveway/drainage area along the west side of Arden Plaza was queried. Vogel explained it will be ber.ed; noted that 1.2 acres of the site will be drained to the east to connect with the Arden Plaza systell. MCNiesh reported no response from Arden Plaza relative to the City's request to correct the drain- age pattern at the west of the .hopping center property. (McNiesh was requested to contact C.G. Rain re status of drainage correction.) The grad of the driveway to County Road E waa discuased. Miller noted that the width of the ecreas drive is identified as 18' on the plan, but it doean't appear to be drawn at 18' on the plan. Vogel said it should be 2~' (18' in and 20' out); grade of drive- way to Arden Plaz waa deacribed as being too steep presenting an egress problam onto County Road E. Miller reported the pro- posed grade at the entrance/egress drive is shown at 7%; 'County will permit 5~ grade. Miller said be personally 'feels it should be no greater than 3~. Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council approve the minor 3 lot subdivision as proposed with Case No. 83-14, and approve the Phase 1 site plan, subject to: 1. Resolution of Park Dedication prior to issuance of Occupancy Permit. 2. Approval of Final ,Landscape Plan by City Planner. 3. Approval of final grading and drainage plan by City Enginear and Rice Creek Watershed District. 4. Site Plan approval by Fire Chief. 5. Signage Plan approval. 6. Acceptance by tbe applicant of tbe following conditions: a) Drives at ends of builiings Shall be poated PNo Parking". -5-