Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 09 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 14, 2014 Page 5 of 13 • PUD - Proposed total area SF is 48,600 SF, 27,477 SF admin /shops, 21,203 SF heated storage and vehicle storage. • Lot 2 is being developed. Eastern side 491 feet will be governed by CDDSG and western 100' governed by IDDSG. • Portion of building in Industrial zone requires waiver for outside storage (exceeds 10 %). • Site has 30% landscaping. • Setbacks — Front 30'minimum, proposed 242' set back from Dillon Road. Side north 10' and south 30' minimum, proposed 275' north, 89' south. Rear 10' minimum, proposed 13.8' • Parking requirements for CDDSG /IDDSG require 68 spaces based on proposed use. Proposed 149 spaces with two access points off 104th, spaced accordingly 120' from northern boundary and 225' from intersection. • Heights permitted are 35' (41' for mechanical), proposed 26' for Admin /Shops and Heated Storage and 28' for Salt Storage. • Rendering of Admin /Shops shows two access points with public parking. The rendering shows roll -up doors which are prohibited from public viewing in IDDSG and CDDSG. The applicant has done some architectural treatments to minimize the visual appearance with awnings as well as material differentiation with fencing and heavy landscaping. Staff found this consistent with Standards based on distance and setback from Dillon Road. • Heated Storage building rendering shows western view which is visible to public in the near term until Lot 1 is developed. It is not part of public frontage and is reviewed against IDDSG. The architect has broken up the mass of building with landscaping, more like a hybrid between commercial and industrial. • Landscaping standards met with 30% landscape, drought tolerant native species, large native prairie grasses. Business Owners Association of CTC has reviewed the plan and supports it. Provides transition from adjacent ag /open space uses to CTC. • SRU — Required for land uses with no defined scale to municipal use. SRU will generate different amount of traffic and visual impact. SRU has five criteria in Municipal Code and Staff finds all five criteria have been met. • EV - 30' drainage and utility easement was originally platted between Lots 6, 7, and 12 that is no longer needed based on new d n. Public Works agrees with easement vacation. 116. I'01111111i11■., • Conservation Easement - Existing 54' conservation easement on eastern and southern portion of site. Reason was transition to open space. Dedicated in 2005 and established drainage and buffer. This plan has a sign and two driveways placed in the easement, consistent with fire station treatment. Sign will not interfere with the original intent. Staff recommends approval. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 14, Series 2014, for a final Plat, PUD, SRU, and EV for City Services with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall comply with the comments provided in the August 6, 2014 memo provided by City Engineer, Craig Duffin, prior to recordation. Commission Questions of Staff: Moline asks why the lot was not rezoned. Concern is two -zone district on one lot and no defined boundary. Russ says there could be a reason to rezone. With proposed use and requirements, Staff did not find it necessary to rezone. There is nothing in Municipal Code to require it in terms of replat. In PUD, the boundary is defined.