Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br />would prefer a more natural buffer, the drawback is that it would take years to fi.�lly screen the j <br />parking area when a fence would provide for immediate screening. In this case, input from <br />adjacent residents would be helpful. <br />Planning Associate Atkinson noted the building exhibits an aesthetically pleasing, context- <br />sensitive residential appearance. Materials to be used include brick on the lawer`.portion of the <br />wal�s, vinyl siding on the remainder of the wall, and steel panel'roofing. He',preserited elevation <br />drawings and indicated Staff feels it will blend in well with the neighborhood. i <br />Planning Associate Atkinson stated the applicants are propo'sing two wall signs and one ground <br />sign far their facility. The ground sign will be located on the southern portion of the property, <br />, approximately twenty (20) feet from the property line. The sign rrieets the setback requirement of <br />fifteen (15) feet. The two wall signs will be located on the southwest and sontheast sides of the <br />building, respectively. The elevation drawings show the Iocatiori-of the signs, but do not show <br />the size of the signs. The ground signs may be a maxunutn�of 100 square feet;in total area for all <br />ground signs. <br />- .;�f0. i'kL ���'„�}.� t .;. <br />� 3�� <br />Planning Associate Atkinson stated if tYie Planrifng Corniiiission beheves it has received <br />sufficient information from staff, residents a.rid the appl�cant, �ti may act on Resolution 670-01, a <br />�„ � � <br />resoIution recommending approval of the �: developmerit review �for �ie Mounds View Animal <br />HospitaL If the Planning Commission feels that the:�applican.ts�'�ave not adequately addressed <br />these issues, they should table the re�iew ezntil the �next meeting to allow the applicants time to <br />provide more information to satisfyst�ie �Commission. � P� ,"'� <br />;n�� , , , , . , <br />: �� :�'"�;5� _ <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if •;a condihori can �be �a���ed to the development agreement to <br />require a fence to be erected�shoul�l the fence�o�v�r`ied b j��the apartments be removed at some point <br />, , ,. �,�, �� �;.s <br />in t�me ;�Plarirung Associat�`Atklrnson stated th�� coi�dition could be added. <br />.;�;; 4 y � �,y <br />i - � � �.rs <br />`:�.J r ��' ����.�r�t <br />Communrty D�velopment Director Encson clarified that the fence on Silver Lake Commans was <br />constructed as part of a development re�iew and is required for their development so it cannot be <br />removed. <br />Commissioner Miller asked'how large the staff will be at any one time. <br />. 5+ .. <br />Dr;Kevin Barcus, applicant; estimated eight to ten. - <br />y,. <br />`' Commissioner Miller asked if proof of parking is an option since their staff level is low and there <br />would be adequate parking spaces. She suggested requiring additional green space and proof of <br />pazking rather than 27 parking spaces. <br />Flannirig; Associate Atkinson stated the revision to require additional landscaping and green <br />space with proof of parking in lieu of parking could be done. <br />Dr. Barcus stated he would also support more green space but is unsure how the site can be <br />reconfigured to create more green space. He noted that the refuse area could be moved closer to <br />the building to provide additional green space. - <br />