Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Zoning File #2326 <br />January 16,1998 <br />Page 10 <br />! <br />G. <br />H. <br />I. <br />Loading berths. No loading berm on the site plan, and presumably are no intended. <br />Staff would note that retail uses, especially restaurant type uses, may involve daily <br />deliveries, and such uses that are franchises might involve fairly large delivery <br />vehicles. Applicant should define how deliveries will occur to the site, and for <br />instance, if they use the rear entrance, applicant should demonstrate that there is <br />sufficient width in that rear alley way to accommodate drive through traffic as well <br />as delivery traffic. <br />**Drive-in standards ”. Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 19 discusses standards for <br />"drive-in establishments". It is unclear whether the intent of this section is to <br />regulate drive-in restaurants, or general drive through service uses. The requirements <br />include construction of a screening fence along "the lot line", presumably finding that <br />a drive-in use is not something one wants to look at. In the context of the proposed <br />bank drive through, staff would assume that the canopy and drive through facilities <br />will be commensurate in character with the building, and will not require any unusual <br />fencing or screening. <br />Landscape plan. The City's landscape consultant, Wally Case of DSU, Inc., has been <br />requested to review the general layout of this site, including landscape plan. His <br />written comments will be available late in the week of January 20. It should be noted <br />that the site contains approximately 10-15 mature hardwoods at the north end of the <br />site, all of which will apparently be removed as part of this development. Applicant <br />should define whether there are any mature trees on the site that will be preserved. <br />It would appear that the scattered nature of those trees will make preservation <br />difficult. <br />Planning Commission should review the landscape plan and ultimately the comments <br />by Mr. Case, and conclude whether any revisions are appropriate. While the <br />landscape plan is fairly detailed. Case has suggested that much more landscaping is <br />needed to not only replace the trees being lost but to help in providing a transition to <br />the residential surroundings. Hardwood boulevard trees are proposed approximately <br />every 50'; more are likely needed, and unless significant changes are made to the <br />boulevard, the trees will be growing up from a sidewalk. The existing sidew'alk along <br />Shadywood Road extends from the intersection ' and 19 northward to the north <br />boundary of this property. The total proposed ,.i from Shadyw ood Road curb to <br />parking lot curb is only 12', and if half that is taken up by sidewalk, applicant must <br />detail how boulevard landscaping will be established in the remainder. <br />Staff recommends that a much more thorough landscape plan be presented.