Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-3- <br /> <br />'!he applicant is also seeking approval of the shoreline deve10prrent permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the original landscaping plan submitted by the applicant <br />did not contain adequate landscaping for the site. '!he revised plan has increased the <br />arrount of naterial considerably and appears to be a reasonable proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Bill Sheehy, representing the applicant, indicated that they have obtained a permit <br />from the Rice Creek Watershed District. <br /> <br />Mr. George Rafferty, architect representing the applicant, indicated that the proposed <br />office building will be four stories in height. He stated that the building would rreet <br />all present day energy standards. He camented that several architectural naterials <br />had been investigated and that they have chosen a porcelainized metal panel for the <br />exterior material. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mrs. Dressler expressed concern about the additional traffic exiting from Snelling onto <br />County Road B-2. <br /> <br />Mr. Glen Van Wonner, representing the applicant, indicated that 1300 to 1500 trips per <br />day are projected for the proposed developrrent, which is about one third of the nurrber <br />of trips projected for the previously approved IIDte1, retail, office conp1ex. He <br />stated that there should be no problem in getting off the ranp. <br /> <br />Mr. Sirrons indicated that he was concerned about the proposed variance to the shore- <br />line setback requirercent. He stated he was not so Imlch concerned with this particular <br />application, but as it might effect potential deve10pnent on other lakes in our City. <br />Mr. Sirrons asked Mr. Dahlgren what he meant by the stateIrent in his report that the pro- <br />posed setback. variance does not destroy the intent of the shore land ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the intent of the ordinance was to protect shoreland. He <br />stated that certain C0111rercial deve10pnent could have a deleterious effect on a lake. <br />He stated that it was his opinion that the proposed office building, with a setback of <br />50 feet, would not have a bad effect on Zintrernan Lake. <br /> <br />Mr. Mastel asked what would be the effect on the height of the building from the view <br />of the neighbors to the north, by IIDving ita minimum of 100 feet from the lake. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty responded that there would probably not be any visible change in the <br />height for the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Rukavina asked whether the stairs and retaining walls shown between the building <br />and the lakeshore, on the prorrotional brochure, were a part of the proposed developrrent. <br /> <br />Mr. Rafferty indicated that they were not, and that between the building and the lake- <br />shore would be only grass and landscaping. '!here would be no patio or concrete area. <br /> <br />Mr. Van ~vo:rner indicated that the parking lot would not be terraced as was originally <br />proposed but that landscaping would be used to break up the parking area. <br /> <br />Mr. Sirrons comrented that it looked like snow rerroval could be a problem particularly <br />with the landscaping as it is designed. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Wonrer responded that he felt there was enough room to handle the snCM storage, <br />but that if necessary, it would have to be transported off the site. <br />