Laserfiche WebLink
Exhibit E <br />(#4) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL <br />SITE PLAN REVIEW (6:15-6:25 P.M.) <br />Stevan Wagner, the applicant, was present. <br />Planner Curtis reported that in September 2003 the applicant submitted an application for <br />a building expansion and remodel in the B-1 Zoning District. As per City Code Section <br />78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the <br />Planning Commission and City Council. As such, the applicant has requested the <br />following: <br />1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and <br />expand an existing 2,310 s.f. concrete block building on the property to a 4080 s.f. <br />building, a 1,770 s.f. total expansion. <br />2) A setback variance in order to re-use the existing sign pole which is setback 8’ <br />from the front property line where 10’ is required. The signage itself will extend <br />an additional 4 ’ into the setback area for a sign setback of 4 ’ when 10’ is <br />required.* <br />3) Hardcover variance to allow existing driveway hardcover to become structural <br />hardcover.* <br />*Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review <br />Curtis continued, stating that the application was presented at the October 2003 Planning <br />Commission meeting and the November 2003 work session. The following information <br />was requested by the Planning Commission at the October meeting for the applicant to <br />provide for their review: <br />1. Storm water management plan (indicating drainage and grading). <br />2. Detailed landscape plan including any vegetative screening. <br />3. A lighting plan. <br />4. Existing and proposed exterior storage plan, including any equipment staging <br />area. <br />5. Exterior building material detail. <br />6. Hazardous waste management solutions <br />During the November work session Planning Commission asked the applicant to provide <br />more detailed information and receive approval from other jurisdictional permitting <br />authorities such as the Hennepin County Environmental Services, Minnesota Pollution <br />Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). <br />Curtis indicated that to date the applicant has complied with Hennepin County <br />Environmental Services hazardous waste generator requirements, applied for a MPCA <br />Industrial Waste Water Permit and received a permit (for Rule B: Erosion Control and <br />Rule N: Stormwater Management) from the MCWD. The Rule B permit states that <br />erosion control consisting of a silt fence and a gravel construction entrance have been <br />approved, and the Rule N permit states that the applicant ’s project requires Best <br />'ll <br />’;