03-21-06 minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved that are similar as determined by the City Council for a special use permit. Carlson replied that he would create a paragraph D for special uses under district A1 street level. Schiferl inquired if the allotment of ten thousand square feet per retail space may be to high, and they may end up with one store taking up one whole side of the street. Carlson replied that each side of the street has been allotted fifteen to twenty thousand square feet, with a total of thirty to forty thousand square feet in total. Twenty thousand square feet is reserved for retail, with the other uses to be able to use the additional square footage. He also recommended that in the new special uses section for district A1 street level that they add uses that are greater than ten thousand square feet, to cover all possibilities. Schiferl requested that in the Outside Storage, Service, and Loading Areas section that recycling be added to it. He recommended the following changes to that section: ? …mechanical equipment, trash, and recycling collection… ? Add a sentence that states adequate space will be allotted for recycling. Baker inquired if it was possible to screen the docks and the loading areas from any public street. Carlson replied that it is possible with a wall or through building design. Baker stated that he doesn’t want to add a condition that would be difficult to meet. Fernelius added that the goal of the framework plan is have those area’s internalized within the development and screened from the right of way or public street. Schiferl requested in the section for Resource Efficiency the following changes be made: ? “…waste reduction and, use of recycled and non-toxic building materials, and recover of waste materials through recycling or other beneficial use. Zisla inquired how the City will be tracking the resource efficiency requirements when the code states that the City is “encouraging” the developers to follow them. Carlson stated that to be able to enforce the code the City would have to come up with very detailed plans on what would be required. While the City has not come up with a specific list, it is taking a step to encourage these uses and it can be addressed at each meeting with the developers. Schiferl inquired if the porous street material should be pervious materials instead, since porous materials do not work well in our climate. Carlson agreed “pervious” was the preferred term. Schiferl asked why town homes should be held to a different value of primary and secondary finishes. Carlson replied that it comes down to a cost issue, if the town homes were held to a higher percentage of primary materials; it could raise the cost of the homes into a different price category. Zisla inquired about how the area along Hwy 35 will be treated. Carlson replied that all four sides must meet the building materials standards. Zisla stated that the area along Hwy 35 should be treated as a front also. Carlson added that Hwy 35 is a public street and so loading and service areas would have to be screened. Howard inquired how the A1 retail square footage was arrived at. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\03-21-06 minutes.doc