My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
2001 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/29/2012 9:14:03 AM
Creation date
2/27/2012 4:13:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
932
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MII'H <br />T'ebruary 21, 200i <br />Page 2 <br />z'equired. The first e�pansion would add 3,000 square Feet to the office and would require an <br />additionai 12 stalls. The second expansion wouid be a second story addition of 6,000 square feet <br />which would require an additional 24 spaces. Th� site plans do indicate an adequate number of <br />stails for fult build-out, yet 22 of ihese spaces are indicaied as proof of pai•king, to be constnacted <br />if and when the second-story expansion is completed. The parking plan is consistent with the <br />PUD and also complies �vith the ADA requirements for handicapped accessible stalls. <br />Wetland Bu�e��: <br />Staff reviewed ihe 5ilverview Estates case file and associated documents and did not find any <br />evidence of a buffer permit approved far ihis site. While the Planning Commission does not <br />review buffer permits, stafffelt it important to address the issue, iionly briefty, to assure the <br />Commission that this would be resolved. As can be seen on Page Al, l, the proposed building <br />only slightly encroaches into the wetiand buffer (the dashed line representing a 100-foot distance <br />from ihe delineated wetland.) The City approved the Silverview Estates PUD with full <br />knowledge thai there would be buffer encroachment, but determined the extent of encroachment <br />would be minimal, as is the case on this lot. The appficant will provide detailed drainage <br />calculations to ensure that the stormwater pond which has already been constructed and sized to <br />accommodate this development, will be adequate. <br />Lcrndsca�ing: <br />The appiicant has provided a deiailed landscape plan which has been reviewed by the Ricic <br />�7Vriskey, the City Forester. Mr. Wriskey recommends that some of the species be changed to <br />comparable species maxe eonducive to Mounds View soils and clinnate. <br />Proposed <br />Fali Gold Ash <br />White Spire Birch <br />Cranberry Cotoneasters <br />Spreading Yews <br />Day Lily <br />Service Berry <br />Broadmore Juniper <br />Li�htin� <br />Replace With: <br />---> I'afmore Ash (Patmore provides for a <br />fuEler crown and is iess disease prone) <br />---> River Birch Clumps (White Spire is <br />Prone to disease) <br />___> Dwarf Korean Lilacs or Gofd Flame <br />Spirea (Cranberry Cotoneasters not suitable <br />for MN) <br />--�> ??? (the berries are highly foxic!} <br />--�> Only 3 each? This wiil be changed. <br />The applicant has sub�x�itted a photometric analysis of the siie (Page E1.2) based on the foat- <br />candle readings af the proposed lighting. According to the photometi°ic analysis, there are three <br />parlcing lot pole lights, three building mounted wa11 packs, and three lights recessed into the <br />�anderside of the front entry canopy. The parking lot poles will be 24 feet tall and the bulbs <br />-: ; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.