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
1Vlounds �Iiew Planning Commission <br />Regular 1Vleeti�xg <br />�Tanuary 3, 2001 <br />Page 5 <br />Thumb would creaie an area not clearly visible from the street which may cause a problem with <br />Ioitering and vandalism. A fence on filie other side of the property xr�ay warlc better. <br />Ms. Little inquired as to where trafiic would exit the property. <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated <br />Commissioner Hegland stated he believed developing the � <br />on it would tal�e care af the foot txaffic issue. He then indi <br />needed to be screened as it appears to be an aesthetically p. <br />Greenfield Avenue. This would make it hard to screer� fro <br />without blocking the view of the front of the building. <br />Cornmissioner Kaden stated he had brought up the <br />up at the meeting in September of 2000. The bu�lc <br />residential in nature and, in his opinion, shouid;noi <br />Community D�velaprnent Dir�ctor <br />the property owner to the sauth to c <br />staied <br />flow out orito County Road <br />and having the office liiiildiiig `' <br />was not sure the building .` <br />uilding with the front facing <br />�iderits`'on Greenfield Avenue <br />irig pr�sented at this <br />need to be screened <br />� �ave Mr. Mezzenga contact <br />building. <br />3`been brought <br />is miuch more <br />Commissioner Hegland stated he would like to :have a signage agreement in writing that indicates <br />the City intends to be rnore restric€ive with this;affice.bu�lding due to the fact i� is located in a <br />mostly resideutial neighbarliood s �'�� - <br />.<, <br />Comrnuruty Development Ulrector Ericson stated the City would not ailow a pylon sign and <br />would insist on a inon�inent type sigri not to exceed eight feet in height. NIr. Mezzenga has been <br />made aware of the City'� requirements for signage. <br />�r inquired as to <br />the trash bins wauld be located on the property. <br />rnunity Develop�neni Director Ericson indicated he believed they would come out the front <br />as this is an office building and daes not require an outside firash dun�pster. Staff will <br />rm the trash bin lo'cation to he sure. <br />: � �� �Li V ll�lll ll �1 <br />as io where the snow from the parking lot would be removed to. <br />Community Developrnent Director Ericson indicated there was plenty of green space on the <br />nronerizr for'snow to be accumulated. <br />Cornmunity Develapment Director Ericson stated he would spealc to Mr. Mezzenga concerning <br />the issues raised by the Pianning Conunission and aslc Mr. Mezzenga to provide a revised site <br />- pian at a future meeting. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.