02-20-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2107 Februarj' 14,1996 Page 5 problems for the site. During the review of the O’Sullivan project, the City decided against amending the Code to create standards for the multiple use but preferred to allow the area limitations of the property to restrict multiple uses and any expansion of those uses. The City recently reviewed an intensification in food serv ice at the convenience store at O’Sullivans and approved a walk-up window to serve customers at the exterior of the building. The propertv' consists of 66,000 s.f. Required area for the B-l zoning district is 20.000 s.f. for a principal use. One may argue that there is adequate area to serv’e three principal uses on the site. Review of Variances fhe car wash structure does not meet the required setback of 35’, proposed at 5’, Parking along the side lot line adjacent to the church propert>', a residentially zoned property, does not meet the required 10' setback. One might argue that the parking adjacent to the side street should meet the same 20’ setback as for front yard. The Code only references parking adjacent to residential and does not deal with a more restrictive standard for a side street yard. Parking can be as close as 3. Members are asked to review Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A & B). A lot coverage variance will be required as property is less than 1.99 acres in area. It is shown at 20.2% where the Code would allow 15?^. The majority of the 33’ of area to be vacated will consist of utility easements. Note the dumpster enclosure would not be permitted within an easement area but parking and drives would be allowed. Note along the side lot line adjacent to the church property, extensive filling along that portion of the property will require a retaining wall. This may also be an issue in light of the existence ot utilities that may need to be accessed. The Code has requirements for landscape/yard/green areas. There is little of that shown on this busy site. Gradimi^Drainage Proposed and existing topography should be shown on one grading plan that should also include building locations, elevations and erosion control to be used during construction. One-third of the property’s drainage will drain to a proposed underground storm sewer to the residential property to the northeast. The retention pond will treat and retain runoff before it enters the DNR and Orono designated wetland just to the east of the subject propertv-. .Approximately nvo-thirds ot the surface runoff from the site will drain to the southeast comer and eventually to the same DNR wetland to the east No retention or treatment is provided. The current laws will not allow runoft from a commercial site to drain directly into a protected wetland. Drainage ponding calculations should be provided once the final extent of uses on the site have been resolved. J