Laserfiche WebLink
� .��__ � <br />,� <br />-- _ _ - - �-� --- .:�=� I^ <br />Mounds View Plan <br />Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />applicant proposes to remove two homes adjacent to the facility <br />accommodate a future expansion, and install a stormwater holding, p <br />currently nothing on the site to accommodate the stormwater rui�i�i�i, <br />S ki,•+' <br />stormwater holding pond is viewed as a significant improvement", <br />wetlands on the site. { _:° <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was discusser� <br />Commission meetings, during which, significant discussiay� <br />proposed expansion and the fact that two houses adjacen� <br />replaced with the expanded parking lot. At the previou <br />requested the landscape plan be revised to include additiort� <br />help mitigate this encroachment. <br />Planning Associate Ericson advised that the lands��.� <br />four to five-foot tall arborvitae on the northeast <br />screening, and with the addition of trees a� t�e south <br />that the landscape plan was adequate a�t��met witl <br />reviewed the revised landscape plan ani� has fount�� <br />consistent with City soils and the c��im�te'of the are�. <br />Planning P�ssociate Eric,o,� ". <br />before �r�� �}er the pro.�,c��� <br />Planr��`��; f;€�tn��is�ion b��A��?� <br />standa����Cf ��F �e:rti; ��slcin�; Ioi-, i <br />subject pro����t�l �� ���o1J.woo <br />poles would l�� ���i�� ����, and ; <br />;iclr�; c; <br />ae 9 <br />all <br />April 19, 2000 <br />Page 3 <br />, expap7d' th�; paz�lc�ng lot to <br />ond on tr��; t��£���rty. There is <br />there�'o���;; �.��� ����irion of the <br />and wili �����;1�� ��s ;���rPCt the <br />�: <br />15 and Apri1 �� ��1?�b�3i�7�; <br />rding the im�racc�`€�z` �lic; <br />would be removed and <br />� ;�''lanning Commission <br />� �l�tings on the site to <br />���; �,�en reviscc� 9:o indicate a row of <br />���e I ���,c�perty to provide additional <br />�f�� ����i.��, ��a��Planning Commission felt <br />c��.�a> ����Y�ies. The City Forester has <br />oi� �r�e }�Aoposed planting species are <br />' the parlti���� ���;r..������tnents are met with the proposal, both <br />ansion. ��� ���.c���,r?�ed that at one of previous meetings, the <br />��. upon ati ���ue'r��rtaining to the proposed 30-foot tall light <br />4��� a brought forward by a resident located to the south of the <br />,;,, 9�� explained that this resident commented that these light <br />��,���j=�at��-of place in this residential neighborhood. <br />Planning��s�'ociai� -L.r�r,���t ����?��;�ced staf�'reviewed the issue and made reference to the lighting <br />� ..:. <br />of th�£�Vynnsong 1Th����=' ���;���1> on Highway 10. He explained that residents south of the <br />�<,.::,� _ __ <br />th��er on County Ro�d �'? ��accessfully lobbied to have the parking lot lights nearest County <br />, �- <br />Rt��d H2 be no taller ttt�C�` �� feei. 5taff has spoken with the lighting engineer who indicated the <br />1�����ht of the proposed�s��ht standards could be reduced, however, there would be some trade oii <br />n •,nr <br />�ri ��rms of the numb.�r;�of light standards that would be required to meet the lighting needs of the <br />:.,,,.�:,. <br />����j���t��; ��,,:�Ciate Ericson stated it was staf�'s contention that something must be done with <br />�`��,�� �� Er� ��� lighting, as this is strictly a residential neighborhood. He explained that while the <br />Church has been present at this site for a number of years, the proposed expansion of the parking <br />lot would bring it closer to the other properties, and the new parking lot lights would create an <br />encroachment into the nighttime calm and peace that the neighborhood currently enjoys. He <br />advised that the resolution before the Planning Commission contains a stipulation that the lighting <br />plan be revised to indicate that the light standards be 24 feet in height or less, with lesser intensity <br />lumens than the presently proposed 400 watt bulbs. He explained that staff was not certain if it <br />-----� <br />