08-17-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i»V-r■ m .-'•L1 h t--- : Zoning File #1738 June Hr 1992 Page 4 It will be important for Planning Commission members to listen to the concerns of the residences most impacted by the proposal. If the use and proposed location of use are approvedr many of the concerns raised by the residents should be addressed in developing a conditional use permit and approved site plan for the formal conditional use permit application. Some of these issues have been addressed in the City Engineer's reportr Exhibit J. He recommends buffering with berms and landscaping along the east and north side of property# relocating structure so that parking and outdoor activities requiring lighting are relocated to the west and south side of building (i.e. building can be used as the buffer to many of those activities). If members feel a zoning amendment is necessary# provide staff with direction as to appropriate setbacks# special landscaping needs# parking# lighting# signage# etc. It is unfortunate that the only available site on the school property is the proposed location at the northeast corner providing the most impact on existing and future residential development. It would be the hope of the City to work with both the sc)k>o1 district and the applicant to determine if the use could be relocated along Old Crystal Bay Road (review Exhibit N# specifically area of soccer field) in an attempt to minimize impact on residential use. its Concerning Site Plan Structure is shown at approximately 240* x 140* at an approximate area of 33#600 s.f. In the earlier review of parking needs# staff reviewed the formula for community centers# stadium and auditorium parking. Applicant has provided parking for the most restricted at 250 with the potential for future expansion. It is the Intent of the applicant to provide parking for the baseball users during off-season. The two curb cuts are shown directly off of County Road 6 and in an early meeting with Hennepin County DOT# it was determined that access along the west side of the property is unsafe and that access to the site must be at the most eastern edge. It is recommended that an interior road be planned along the east side of the property. Applicant would be responsible for installing road per standards set forth in City Engineer's report, in that report the City Engineer recommends that the road be installed to the south side of the proposed lot with a temporary cul-de-sac and that a through road be deve^developed at the time of further development. Staff will address this issue later. The building is shown at a maximum height of 32* and will require variance approval# as 30* is maximum allowed for the zoning district. Review Exhibit I# Osian has listed all the pertinent items that will need to be addressed by applicant# i.e. sprinkling of building# payment of approximately 20 sac and sewer and water units. His report also noted the need for an elevator to mezzanine area. attorns