Laserfiche WebLink
' i <br /> i <br /> �� k , <br /> � <br /> ;#06-3185 WJM Properties LLC <br /> q �Apri114,2006 <br />- � •`<PAge 5 ' <br /> � <br /> ��Engineering Concerns. The proj ect has been reviewed by the City Engineer aiid his conunents <br /> ;are attached as Exhibit G. His conulients relate generally to drauiage and stormwater runofF �� <br /> concerns associated with the parking lot expansion. The Engineer finds tlie plaiis acceptable, � <br /> 'noting thafi the pre-e�:isting on-site storni sewer system depicted ou the plazis lias inadequate <br /> capacity but its overflow has no impact on adj oiiuiig properties,and the entire site will discharge � <br /> to Kenobi Pond just east of the property(part of the MnDOT project). �' <br /> The Engineer has provided an estimate of improvement costs associated with the proj ect for <br /> ,,pi.uposes of a development agreement aiid financial guarantee. Staff will be working with the <br /> ;applicant,Cifiy Engineer aild City Attorney to define what elements of the improvements need to <br /> � <br /> be covered under a development agreement. <br /> It was noted on Apri113 that site grading and work on the drainage systems is in progress. Staff <br /> §will be working with the City Engineer aiid the applicants to determine whether this work is in <br /> compliance with approved plans. Erosion control nieasures are in place on the site. <br /> ; , ; , <br /> j r <br /> Issues for Consideration ; <br /> r <br /> � , i <br /> ,�1. Are there any elements of the request that would have negative impacts on adjoining <br /> � <br /> property ov�nlers? , <br /> 2. Are there any other specific concerns with the proposed 25,000 s.f. building addition? � <br /> Does Pla.iuiing Coimiussion agree that the fa�ade materials are appropriate? � <br /> 3. Are there any concerns with the attaclunent of the two accessory buildings? ', <br /> t �j <br /> 4. Are there any concerns regarding expansion of the parking lot belund the new addition? � <br /> , <br /> 5. Should the two 60'flag poles be approved? Wliat if any limitations should be placed on • <br /> the flag poles? � <br /> 6. Ate there airy negative aspects of allowing more tlia.i140 "display" or denionstration <br /> vehicles if they are parked at the south eiid of the lot as proposed? <br /> � <br /> 7. Are there any iieeds for screeiung or landscapiiig associated with the proposed � <br /> �� eapansioiis? <br /> x <br /> ;�8. Does Plaruung Conunission have asiy other issues for discussioii in relation to this <br /> , project? <br />