HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-02 NAC Planning Reporthl NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Tom Melena
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Scott Richards
DATE: August 2, 2001
FILE NO: 798.02 - 01.06
BACKGROUND
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B Site Plan (Phase 1)
Exhibit C - Site Plan (Phase 2)
Exhibit D - Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit E Utility Plan
Exhibit F - Landscape Plan
Exhibit G Building Elevations
Exhibit H Floor Plan
Exhibit 1- Lighting Plan
Exhibit J - Steetscape Elements
Exhibit K City Arborist Comments
Exhibit L City Engineer Comments
RE: Oak Park Heights — Sigstad's Carpet- Conditional use Permit and
Site Plan Review
Greystone Construction of behalf of Sigstad's Carpet has requested site plan approval
to allow the construction of a 27,885 square foot, four-tenant retail facility upon a 2.2
acre parcel of land located south of 60 Street North and west of Oakgreen Avenue.
In addition to the request for site plan approval, the applicants have also requested
approval of a conditional use permit to allow flexibility from the City's off-street parking
supply requirements.
The building is proposed to be developed in two phases with the northerly 24,979
square feet of the building (comprising three tenant spaces) being constructed initially.
The subject property is zoned CBD, Central Business and was included in the Central
Business District Urban Design Study. As a result, the recently adopted Central
Business District Design Guidelines apply to the proposed development.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55 1 6
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as CBD, Central Business
District by the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the CBD
designation is to provide a focal point for the community in terms of retail, service and
entertainment businesses as well as residential opportunities. As such, the CBD zoning
designation and proposed retail commercial use are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Zoning. Within CBD zoning Districts, retail sales are listed as permitted uses.
Phasing. As previously indicated, the 27,885 square foot building is proposed to be
developed in two phases with the northerly 24,979 square feet of the building
(comprising three tenant spaces) being constructed initially. Such phasing plan
responds to a need to provide on -site stormwater ponding on an interim basis (until
hook up to the municipal stormwater system is possible). The inclusion of such ponding
feature also responds to a directive of the Central Business District Urban Design
Study.
While this report shall address issues associated with Phase 2 development, such
future phase will be required to proceed through the Site Plan Review process.
Central Business District Design Guidelines. In October of 1999, the City adopted a
master plan for the Central Business District in an effort to create a pedestrian friendly,
mixed -use district. To aid in the implementation of the goals and policies of such plan,
specific design guidelines for the CBD were developed. The proposed development will
therefore be reviewed in regard to its consistency with such guidelines as referenced
below:
Precinct Designation
The design guidelines establish four precincts within the CBD; the Medium -Box
Mixed Use Precinct, the Small Box Mixed Use Precinct, the Residential Precinct
and the Public Green Precinct. The subject property lies within the Medium Box
Precinct that is intended to provide transitional changes between the big box
development and the small box development proposed south of the site.
2
Development Context and Character
The design guidelines state that buildings within the medium box precinct should
relate to the character of small box development via building scale and height,
building material colors, horizontal lines and architectural styles and details. The
guidelines further state that buildings should form gateways and pillars to other
precincts.
The proposed structure is to be finished in a combination of materials. The majority
of the building is to be finished in Tight brown brick with dark brown rock face block
being provided at the base of the structure. A dark brown cornice has been
proposed to "cap the building
The building appears to satisfy an intent of the guidelines by providing features that
relate to small box development. The use of false second story windows is also
considered a positive design feature by creating a more intimate scale than what
would otherwise exist with standard big box development.
One concern, which does exist in regard to the building character, is the large,
uninterrupted expanses of brick on the north side of the building. To create a more
intimate scale that relates to the west side of the building and improves visual
interest, it is suggested that variations in color in such areas be provided.
The specific acceptability of the proposed building materials will be addressed in
the "Building Materials" section of this report.
Building Setbacks
There are no minimum setback requirements imposed in the CBD District. The
design guidelines however, state that limited setbacks (10 to 15 feet) will be
permitted along 60 Street. Since the adoption of the guidelines, it has been found
that a 40 foot utility easement exists along the south side of 60 Street. As a result,
compliance with the limiting setback directive will not be possible. The proposed
building is provided a 57 foot setback from 60 Street and an 81 foot setback from
the unnamed future street to the west. Considering that the referenced utility
easement makes strict compliance with the setback guideline problematic, the
proposed building setbacks are considered acceptable.
Building Width
According to the design guidelines, buildings in the medium box precinct should
exhibit facades that do not have long and flat continuous planes. Staggering the
facades of the individual tenant spaces and providing columnar elements to the
building facades have satisfied this guideline.
3
Building Height
The CBD zoning district establishes a maximum building height of 35 feet. The
design guidelines state only that building height should vary between 2 and 3
stories. At 20 feet in height, it is debatable whether this design standard has been
satisfied. Considering however that the intent of the directive has been achieved by
providing false second story windows, the proposed 20 foot building height is
considered acceptable.
Building Materials
The design guidelines state that buildings should be constructed of authentic
materials such as wood, brick, stone, cast stone, stucco or pour in place concrete.
Accent materials may include metal, glass, block, copper flashing or similar
materials. As noted previously, a variety of building finish materials have been
proposed including jumbo brick, rock face block (CMU's) and glass.
Generally, such materials are considered satisfactory. Because however, the
design guidelines specifically prohibit the use of jumbo brick, an alternative material
(consistent with such guidelines) should be substituted (i.e. standard brick).
Colors
The design guidelines state that buildings should employ earth tones or muted
colors and that light and bright colors should be used only as minor accents. The
proposed building is to finished in light brown and dark brown colors with light blue
and pale green awnings. Thus, the colors are considered consistent with the
design guidelines.
Walkways
According to the design guidelines, sidewalks within medium box precincts should
be at least 8 feet wide along building frontage and a minimum sidewalk width of 6
feet should be provided along 60 street. While the submitted site plan illustrates a
sidewalk along the future unnamed street to the west, the sidewalk along 60 street
is shown as a future improvement. As a condition of site plan approval, the site
plan should be revised to illustrate (and the applicant should be responsible for the
construction of) a 6 foot wide sidewalk along 60 street.
Streets
As noted on the submitted site plan, a new street is to be constructed to the west of
the subject site. The design guidelines call for a specific street design that
incorporates a sidewalk, lighting and street trees at either side of the roadway. The
City will be responsible for the construction of the yet to be named street (see
Exhibit J).
4
Lighting
The design guidelines state that lighting should be designed to reduce glare and be
in scale with the surrounding buildings and that pedestrian scale lighting, not more
than 14 feet high, should be located on walkways, trailways and adjacent to store
entrances.
For parking lot lighting, fixtures must be in scale with their surroundings with cutoff
fixtures located below the mature height of trees in parking lot islands.
As shown on the submitted lighting plan, two 25 foot high light fixtures have been
proposed along the site's western boundary. Because on- street lighting will be
provided along the eastern side of the unnamed street, it is recommended that the
parking lot fixtures be relocated to the eastern side of the parking lot (along the
west side of the building). Such lighting should complement the design of the
building and be hooded and directed such that the source of the light is not visible
from adjacent properties and rights -of -way.
In addition to the freestanding fixtures, wall mounted fixtures have been proposed
on the north, east, and west sides of the building. Such fixtures are considered
acceptable.
Landscaping
The design guidelines strongly encourage site landscaping to enhance storefront
entries and blank walls. Landscaping is further encouraged to screen dumpsters
and off - street parking areas.
The submitted landscape plan calls for a variety of on -site plantings on the north
and west sides of the site. While the plan will be subject to detailed review and
comment by the City Arborist (see attached Exhibit K), the following supplemental
comments are offered.
• When comparing the Phase 1 and Phase 2 plans, the Amur Maple tree along
the south property line is shown in two different locations. It is suggested that
tree be located consistent with the Phase 2 development plan.
e While specified as proposed plantings along the unnamed street, a "GA" tree
designation is not provided in the plant schedule. This should be corrected.
6 To compliment the visual appearance of the building, it is suggested that
pavement cut out areas be provided near the main entrance, within which small
trees or shrubs may be planted.
5
Use
Ordinance Requirement
Required Spaces
Retail Store (Phase '1)
24,979 x .9 = 22,481 sf
1 space per 200 square
feet
112
Retail Store (Phase 2)
27,885 x .9 = 25,097 sf
1 space per 200 square
feet
125
Access. Ultimately, the subject site will be accessed via two points from the future
unnamed street to the west. On an interim basis and subject to MnDot and City
approval, access will be provided from the north from 60 Street.
According to the site plan, the site's northernmost access from the unnamed street lies
approximately 67 feet south of 60 Street North. As noted on attached Exhibit L, the
City Engineer has recommended that a minimum access separation of 150 feet be
provided from 60 Street. Based on informal discussions with the City Engineer
ineer
however, some compromise on the access spacing recommendation is anticipated.
Parking Lot Dimensions. All off - street parking stalls and drives aisles have been
found to comply with minimal dimensional requirements of the ordinance.
Site Circulation. Generally, the proposed site circulation for Phase 1 and Phase 2
development appear well conceived and function well. There are however, a number of
concerns that should be addressed as summarized below.
• On the Phase 2 plan, a row end curb barrier should be provided on the northern
end of the parking stalls located in the southeast corner of the site.
• On the Phase 2 plan, the two off- street parking spaces in the southeast corner of
the site should be eliminated and replaced with green area. Such modification
will eliminate an awkward vehicular backing maneuver.
Off-street Parking Supply. As previously indicated, the applicants have requested a
conditional use permit to allow a reduction from the off - street parking supply
requirements of the Ordinance. This is considered with the CBD Urban Design Study
that emphasizes more on- street parking and cross utilization of parking consistent with
a downtown area.
As shown below the ordinance requires a total of 112 off - street parking spaces for
Phase 1 of the retail facility and 125 spaces for Phase 2.
The applicants are proposing to provide 69 spaces for Phase 1 and 75 spaces for
Phase 2.
As part of the Central Business District Design Study, it is suggested that uses within
the Central Business District provide not less than three off-street parking spaces per
1,000 square feet of floor area. Utilizing this requirement, Phase 1 would be required to
provide 67 parking stalls while Phase 2 would be required to provide 77 stalls. Thus,
5
Phase 2 development would be required to provide an additional two off - street parking
stalls. Regardless of whether the parking supply suggestions of the design study have
been satisfied, the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary as such
suggestions have yet to be formally adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance.
To avoid the processing of similar conditional use permits in the future, the City should
consider an amendment that would establish the design study's off - street parking
guideline as an actual ordinance requirement.
Snow Removal. Some question exists as to whether, as part of Phase 2 development
whether adequate area exists on site to accommodate snow storage. if snow is to be
stored on site, the submitted site or landscape plan should be modified to illustrate
areas intended for snow storage.
Grading and Drainage. As shown on the submitted grading and drainage plan, a
stormwater pond has been proposed in the southeast corner of the site (as part of
Phase 1 development.) Such pond must be subject to approval by both the Watershed
District and City Engineer.
Grading and drainage issues (including those related to stormwater ponding) shall be
subject to review and comment by the City Engineer.
Utilities. Utility related issues shall be subject to review and comment by the City
Engineer.
Signage. Specific signage plans have yet to be submitted. As a condition of site plan
approval, all site signage must meet the signage requirements of the Ordinance and
design guidelines. Site signage should however, be designed in a manner considered
compatible with and complementary to the design of the proposed building.
Trash. A single trash enclosure has been proposed in the southeast area of the site.
As part of Phase 2 development, the enclosure wilt be relocated from the south side of
the building to the east side of the Phase 2 addition. The applicant will need to specify
details of the enclosure construction (height, color etc.) as a condition of site plan
approval.
Loading. As shown on the submitted site plan, four loading spaces have been
proposed on the east side of the building. While the location of the spaces dictates that
such spaces may be accessed via a one -way circulation route, ample area does exist to
accommodate turning maneuvers in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 designs.
Development Agreement. A development agreement between the applicants and the
City will be required as part of the approvals subject to City Attorney and City Council
review and approval. All aspects of the agreement including the payment of
assessments related to standard utility construction shall be additional conditions of
approval for the proposed development.
7
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Based on the preceding review, our office believes the development proposal satisfies
the intentions of the of the Central Business District Design Guidelines and therefore
recommends the following:
A. Site Plan approval to allow the construction of a two phase, 27,885 square foot retail
building upon the subject site subject to the following conditions:
1. The City approve a conditional use permit to allow the proposed off - street
parking supply.
2. Proposed Phase 2 development shall be subject to site plan review
procedures as established by Ordinance and the CBD Design Guidelines.
3. To improve visual interest, the large wall expanses on the north building
elevation be modified to provide a variation in color.
4. An alternative to jumbo brick, consistent with the CBD Design Guidelines (i.e.
standard brick), be substituted as an exterior finish material.
5. The site plan shall be revised to illustrate a 6 foot wide sidewalk along 60
Street. The applicants shall be responsible for the construction of such
sidewalk.
6. The freestanding light fixtures along the site's western boundary be relocated
to the eastern side of the parking lot (along the west side of the building).
7. All site lighting is hooded and directed such that the source of the light is not
visible from surrounding properties and rights -of -way.
8. The submitted Landscape Plan is subject to review and approval by the City
Arborist.
9. The Landscape Plan be revised to illustrate the Amur Maple tree be located
along the south property line in a consistent location (on both the Phase 1
and Phase 2 development plans).
10. The Landscape Plan is revised such that the "GA" tree designation is
referenced on the Plant Schedule
11.To compliment the visual appearance of the building, pavement cut out areas
be provided near the main entrance, within which small trees or shrubs shall
be planted.
8
12.The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to
access - related issues.
13.On the Phase 2 plan, a row end curb barrier be provided on the northern end
of the parking stalls located in the southeast corner of the site.
14.On the Phase 2 plan, the two off- street parking spaces in the southeast
corner of the site be eliminated and replaced with green area.
15.1f snow is to be stored on site, the submitted landscape plan be modified to
illustrate snow storage areas.
16.The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to
grading and drainage issues.
17.The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to utility
issues.
18. Details relating to the trash enclosure construction (ie. height, color etc) be
specified.
19. Ail site signage meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Such signage shall
however be designed in a manner consistent with and complementary to the
design of the building.
B. Approval of a conditional use permit to allow an off - street parking supply Tess than
that required by ordinance subject to the following conditions:
1. The City finds that the project is consistent with the CUP criteria found in Section
401 .30.E of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. All off-street parking stalls meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the
Ordinance.
9
NMI
11 .
rilakii IMI
1PM m11111111 liiiit.
on ma im swam
1111 VA - I" az irMIIII
itra
at.%
..:„... 1111101 =95,),Niii.111
71
111.
11.011111 I 11
: jblinu m El li a - r ----
11 "Asia
-04 216
— NN
AlEn • thin
ILU
9 is
fir 11 tra
rattiwavo
Amu
sa111111
ausition
a UMW
Irina
; r I
z
roriP
I' •
1
MINN
1
IT in
1
'
1111 CMALUd
411
!!!10 illi
„111111m..,"911
--mon
10...
iiimnig 4,
1 11111111
111111111 1 111111111111 1111111
. 1 11 1 1 11 111 111491ill 1111111E111 0 IV Mi 1 1
i 11
11111111111 ---,PIM 1111 !! 11 11111411 • HE 1!!1:! 11II1iI1IdI 11Z 11 : 1 11 1 C11
111111 11111 11111111 11 1 11 1 :1 1 1 1 : 11 11 1; 111 1;
IL . 0 4 „g
111111i4.111 1 11111141
i tt i lt 111 1 1 1111 ' 111 1 11111101111
w
1.11"11, f 42' 1 1 1 1111:1 1 EIBB ZIDMILI 1 111111 111111
1 1 1 , 11 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 W
1 911 ITt!!! 111111 11111 11411 „ 1 1 1 :1 11„ MI I I ! 1 1 11 11 1 i ll 11
111111111111 111111111111
114% 11111
, 1, 0 1-51 , 11 ,1101„16 1111 11 1 1 11 1111111111 4 11 1 111!111I1 111111011 111111111111 11111111110
111111111 111 1
1 :: 11 11 1 1 1 :1 1 :1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111
1 11111
1111 Hon 111111 111111 111 Mil 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 11 1 1 11111
1 1111111 11111111111 1111 1111111 111
'"" 11 1 1 111111 1111110111
" 1:
zlimpul
Exhibit A Site Location
NOIJV/\313
V ±O NNIW ` "51N >l'aVd >'O
ID.:re v CIVI 915
J
ti
1
8
x
Q p
0
0
2
9T
9
J:D4aLG aGWVNNfl
W
0
M N
z
0
6
NQ11V/ 1
VIO5DNNf W 51H 71"e1Vd 7fVO
ZO' SE
M “17I.,Z9010 N
w
n
2
JAI
W w
{C:
0 m W w
W � --
m ro m
V 6
1� m n- w
m w
i92):
D
z 0
W 01.111,
ler
o.rs I 9 -5r 1�
a
›-
it
7
li
sl]
U
0,
a
sd3FLLO AB a3AQIdYtl 38 of c 1Od r
___ -- - - - -- r
r — �.•_ShO Va V.in �lg ��_—
dg
..
frr�
w
iff
A
c
1
1
1 0 - 0 !
1 ell
4e144
Ai$81
i410
0 gars - §.
4
V
5
bah
;h
4
U
T h
gg
sda
r, 93'�
Vra
nnnn
V
n
I!" s a r i a ' 31 a Er
41
o f! j ! fl j Ia to af r:
iht2
y , s 111-1 I r
„, )
Ir. 11 a A / All 1 '�■ � � .,! i 01t
3 R6 ; 1:A4 ! ■ Asi 9 $ a k3
S
5
41
£�Y
A
al
0
U
z
0
W
z
U'
A
t»�vresusu xre
s,^rs� w tcsss :�,orra
1£F'S: 7 W v��✓31y
' S �✓'Y �✓ OCi41
sp@pL3iV
Jeuu f mnea
0
111
u
li orw
rii 1 .
Sil
L_
1[IitldYiDD H0117f1131SHOa
SNQIIVA2 12
YIOSANN1H ''S LH >I?'/d >IVO
1�GlZ!'d9 C V15915
11
M. IS
L
u
1
A!:tld1iDD IiDLL�l7 }I15l:OD
MK1111Q1r7.IC1
NV1 iOO1d
'd10SANNiH ` >ieib'd >IVO
1adZ1ViD Qv_iS9Ig
sT3a1! u3Jy
J U U t1 P!Ae❑
/
0
— 1
a
C�
rvJ .ol x .a --�
h I
z
7
o f
0
•
41
ii g
lz
NOIIVADig
V1052NN11^1 IH 71 W0
19.1v") OVIG9IG
2
iji
nsvi
p
05
"i
4
1.
ij
I HI
cia^m\INn
(((e10
- ,\. •
.000001000.
6
0
5
z
.c(
1
IL
z
Z I-
4'
_I 0
7
.,•
Landscaped buffer strip
•Pedestrian-scale lighting
•Special paving
•Railing
•Ornamental wall
•Landscaping
Exhibit J Streetscape Elements
NAC
From: "l (D. idin" <kwidin mmmpcc.crg>
To: <srichards @ nacplanning.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 10:28 PM
Subject: Sigstad Carpet - Landscape Plan
Scott -
I have reviewed the landscape plan for Sigstad Carpet and have the
following comments:
1. Frontage on 60th St.: The bicolor oaks are fine except that there may be
an
issue by the frontage road with overhead power lines. If the oaks will be
planted within 20 feet of the lines they should be moved to the west
planting area to replace some of the lindens. Trees within 20 feet of the
lines should be smaller ornamental trees. There is quite a bit of frontage
on 60th St. and the Design Guidelines for the Central Business District
state that street trees should be planted no more than 30 feet apart. The
City would like to see more trees planted along 60th St. and these should
be small stature trees such as flowering crabapples (PrairieFire,
'Profusion' and 'Indian Magic' are good varieties). If planted
approximately 30 feet on center there should be room for six trees along
the frontage. There are too many ginnala maple shrubs planted along the
frontage. By replacing some of these with trees, the number of maple
shrubs will be reduced. The City would prefer to see the shrubs on the
frontage planted in more staggered or clumped groupings rather than a
straight line.
2. Parking Lot and Entrance Areas: I would not recommend using tree -form
ginnala maples in the median extensions for the parking lot. There are
enough ginnalas elsewhere already and the clumps will get too big for the
site and hang into the parking area, obscuring lines of sight. I would
recommend Japanese Tree Lilacs to replace the ginnala trees in the 3
locations shown. The Jap. tree lilac is more resistant to de -icing salts
and will not get as big as the ginnala. It would help to soften the facade
of the building if there were a few planting areas with small trees and
shrubs in pavement cut -outs near the main entrance. The burning bushes and
red chokeberries are o.k. in the locations depicted.
3. West Side Planting: I would recommend the use of Tilia americana
('Redmond') instead of the littleleaf lindens. There are more girdling
root problems with Tilia cordata and they will not be as long -lived in the
landscape. The 'Patmore ash are fine (should 'GA' on landscape plan be
'PA'?). The 'Gold spirea are fine in the locations depicted. I
would recommend that the ginnala shrubs on the west side be replaced with
something like dwarf bushhoneysuckle (Dierviia lonicera). More diversity
in the landscape will enhance the longevity of the project. We are seeing
more Acer ginnala invading natural areas in Minnesota now because of their
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit K -City Arborist Comments
widespread use and copious seed production.
4. Planting Detail - Why are trees set in with 1/3 of root hall above
grade? Is that to compensate for nursery stock having roots too deep in
the bail? Often the balls which are planted high don't get covered
adequately by soil and mulch and the roots dry out. only plant trees that
high if soil is heavy clay and there are drainage problems. Back-fill soil
should consist of at least 1/2 soil from the site rather than 1/3 as .listed
in Landscape Notes.
Kathy Widin
idin
Municipal Arborist
City of Oak Park Heights
Page 2 of 2
7/30/2001
NAC
From: "Pastier, Dennis M" <dpostler@bonestroo.com>
To: "Kris Danielson (E- mail)" <kdanielson @cityofoakparkheights.com>
Cc: "Thomas M. Melena (E- mail)" <tmelena @cityofoakparkheights.com >; "Kimberly Kamper (E- mail)"
< kkamper @cityofoakparkheights.com >; "Jay Johnson (E- mail)" <jjohnson @cityotoakparkheights.com >; "Jim
Butler (E- mail)" < jbutler @cityotoakparkheights.com >; "Judy Hoist (E- mail)"
<jholst @ cityotoakparkheights.com >; "Mark Vierling (E- mail)" <mvierling @ eckberglammers.com >; "Scott
Richards (E- mail)" <srichards @ nacplanning.com >; "Katharine D. Widin (E- mail)" <kwidin @ mmmpcc.org >;
"Shimon, Karen S" <kshimon @ bonestroo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:02 AM
Subject: Sigstad Carpets -- CBD
Kris:
I will not be able to attend this morning's site plan review meetrg. I
have been able to give the Sigstad Carpets site plan a cursory review, and
have a few comments /questions for you. My comments differ depending on
whether this is being considered a "stand- alone" development or truly part
of the overall CBD development plan.
As stand alone development (which this site plan depicts, other than
providing for the future street to the south) :
* The sanitary sewer and water main service locations are acceptable
where shown. I would recommend review by the Fire Department to verify
adequate fire protection (hydrant coverage).
* It is assumed that the existing sanitary sewer and water main that
runs along the north side of the property are encompassed by utility
easements, and as such, we would not recommend site improvements being
proposed within this area. If improvements (parking lot) are allowed, we
would recommend that the developers agreement specifically state that should
these utilities require maintenance at any time in the future, it will be
the developers/owner's responsibility to restore any surface improvements
(parking lot, landscaping, etc...) at their cost.
* I would recommend that the proposed northerly driveway be a minimum
of 150' from the 60th Street North intersection, particularly if this street
is to be part of the CBD street circulation plan and separate left and right
turn lanes might be required.
• The storm pond being provided is probably adequate for this site (we
would need to see storm water runoff calculations and a drainage area map)
As part of the CBD Development:
Much more "bigger picture" development analysis is needed to see how this
site fits in to the overall CBD development.
* The side street needs to be reviewed for alignment, grades, and
width (turn lanes) .
* We had envisioned sanitary sewer and water main, and possibly some
street storm sewer, within this side street to serve parts of the CBD (see
comment above re: driveway location and turning lanes)
* The storm water ponding should be reviewed on a more regional basis.
Instead of having a large number of small individual site ponds, the CBD's
storm water ponding scenario under the Xcel Energy high lines would seem a
better overall ponding scenario for individual sites to drain to.
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit L m City Engineer Comments