6.2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to the Planning Commission/CU96-25 Page 4 November 26, 1996 • Landscaping The landscaping plan shows a variety of landscaping as prescribed by the city ordinance; however, the proposed plan does not meet the quantity requirements. The developer attributes the inability to meet the total number of landscaping because of the following: North side of the site - no green area East side of the site - large watermain easement South side - existing concrete sidewalk West side - storm water pond Staff does not see a problem providing landscaping within the watermain easement since the watermain is at a minimum depth of 7-1/2 feet. There is a sidewalk along the south side of the property; however, the green space provided between the sidewalk and the parking area is 10 feet which is a typical parking setback. Therefore, staff is not sure why the landscaping cannot be provided along this area. As far as the storm water pond, it will be recommended later in the report that a flat area of 10 feet prior to beginning the side slopes of the pond be provided, thus allowing landscaping opportunities to occur. Staff would suggest that if the quantities cannot be • obtained for some reason, the landscaping requirements could be satisfied through increasing the size of the plan material. The plans do indicate the entire site will be provided with underground irrigation which is a requirement in the C3 district. Sodding should be required over all areas that are disturbed as part of grading of the site. Once again, plans reflecting Phase I of this development which will include portions beyond the Holiday property lines should include sodding to prevent erosion onto the Holiday site prior to the development of the next site to the north. Building Orientation Staff has discussed with Holiday and the developer the orientation of the buildings throughout this development. It was discussed whether to place the buildings on the east side of the property backing up to Highway 169, or placing them on the west with their back to Freeport. I'm not sure if there is a right or wrong answer to this situation, however, the issue deserves attention since there is so much discussion made of the Elk River Mall with its back to Highway 169. One advantage of having the building on the east side of the site frees up visibility for traffic movements traveling west on School Street then proceeding north on Freeport. On the other hand, if the • building is on the west side of the site, all of the lights from the building and canopy lights, as well as the traffic circulation on site, would all be directed s:\planning\pc\cu96-25x.doc