09-25-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2058 August 17. 1995 Page 7 Applicant proposes installation of fort\'-four stalls with first phase ot improvement and if needed in the future, install the remaining rwenty. Gustafson asks that pventy parking stalls in future exp ansion area should be designed and should drain to the pond. Gustafson goes on to ask for a section of the pavement area showing concrete curb and gutter for parking lot. Access should be a 9 ton design for truck traffic. Access onto County Road 19 should have a 25’ radii to allow for truck turning movements. Gustafson also notes the location of County Road 19 is shown incorrectly on the grading plan and should be corrected. Detail of retaimng wall adjacent to underground loading area should be provided. Gustafson will review the revised plans and prepare an estimate ot the total cost of the site improvemePiS to determine the amount of the letter of credit needed to ensure improvements have been installed to the City’s satisfaction. Applicant will be expected to e.xecute a developer's agreement and post the necessary security once commercial site plan review is completed by both City and drainage/grading plans approved by the Watershed District. Parking E.xcept for the need for storm sewer the parking layout meets the code requirement. 7,036 s.f. of floor area has been deducted from total building area at 19,168 s.f Should the 2,446 s.f. ot shipping and receiving area be deducted from the total building area (review Section 10.61. Subd. 10 (A) noted abW].> All other deductions appear reasonable. Applicant should provide more detail on the activities within the shipping and receiving area. Does this area include the interior loading dock/benh? If sixty-four parking stalls meet the code requirement and applicant proposes a first phase installation of forty-four based on actual parking needs, is a variance necessary as long as applicant signs off on a resolution agreeing to install the additional twenty stalls if a more intense use creates additional parking needs? Setbacks and Yard Requirements Based on the directives of the code it would appear that there are no setback requirements from a zoning boundary’ line. The code only talks about setbacks from lot lines as lots will be legally combined, internal lot lines are erased and lot exists as it did prior to the Leach Addition. Only the zoning boundaiy exists along the nonh/sruth shared lot line of Lots 1. 2 and 3. The applicant is provided more flexibility in developing a site plan now that the residential lot will no longer be developed and the 24’ driveway easement along the north side is vacated. The buildimi and parking are now placed right at the B-4 western boundary. Refer to Exhibit V, note applicant shows future parking and building expansions within LR-IB zonini! district. Unless rezoning is approved, such expansions are not legal within a residential zoning district. If applicant requires an addition ot 30 x85 in the future, then the existing