Laserfiche WebLink
. , _ <br />� <br />, � <br />,___-�:–� ,�-- -�_�_._...}.�_W__---. _ --- --- ._ .. _ .--_ , _ --_ -- - -- -- --- - – – <br />� — --- � -- --- �-__--- __..� _ i <br />Mounds View Plan <br />Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />April 19, 2000 <br />Page 4 <br />would be possibie to lower the intensity of the lights, however, the height o� 71�.�> li <br />could certainly be decreased. He also pointed out that Staff has: learned �}�s��: �r�A�a ; <br />manufactured in five-foot increments, so if the resolution is appr���d, staff�c�i��dd e;^� <br />stipulation be amended to indicate 25 feet or less, as the light �t2iindards are rra��z�j.(�}� <br />foot increments. r.. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated with the exception o�":3 <br />pertaining to the specific conditional use permit crit�ria, '. <br />setbacks, and parking requirements are met. He indicated tk <br />is the permit through Rice Creek Watershed District, which <br />yet retained a contractor to perform the work. He advisei� tl <br />permit request with authorization for administrative a��a���ra <br />applicant obtaining a National Pollution Eliminatioz� ��s�:��r�; <br />was an administrative permit and it would not �� t�� ���� ?:��F <br />Creek Watershed District has essentially authqnzed �i�e �����r <br />:, <br />the wetland delineation indicates the stort�vvater pond is s <br />storm water runoff on the site, and is al�t� �sized fo� �ture t <br />phase of the construction takes pl�c�, ���� storm Sw�ter pond <br />runoff created by this expansion. <br />� �,:. <br />f� <br />Planning <br />the tirev� <br />P <br />approval o <br />a number <br />stipulation <br />would b:e;� <br />' `t'�'� to the list o <br />ssociate Ericson ��di�; <br />u i`�-�,vo meeting�, �i" �h��' <br />�6°i�, �Nitl� th� F����; �,tC <br />o���ax�.��W��n �q�prc��ra� c <br />'��a� t��k,��=.�€����w��fai rP,r�� <br />o�i `���pula��s�¢��:., wi��:� '� <br />tCl:`.;I1iC�1��Y:��" s �l{�: '��.�.�li; :�'L <br />� <br />all of the <br />ras are <br />�nd this <br />in five- ;t <br />,::a�, <br />: �' <br />:�.. Yc+02raaiY <br />��; the zoning requir�i�r�entis, <br />srqar�olved issue at th�s �oint <br />� ;��:��x�,� the applicant has not <br />'r��'��;;,�� 9dR�;,^l �istrict tabled the <br />subjc:cw ��� � � ,���>I� �urety and to the <br />� Systern p�a-x���� �-le indicated this <br />�ld bc� r�r,�ii�;d, therefore, Rice <br />the permit. He advised that <br />:ar�iingly for the anticipated <br />�laerefore, when the second <br />accommodate any additional <br />;;,6���5 <br />the g����>�°s�.l �,��ar��t��i�ial use permit criteria, as reviewed at <br />ning C��'������������ appear to be satisfied, as do the adverse <br />�n of ihe �i����iing on the site. He stated staff recommends <br />,�olution 611-00, which recommends to the City Council <br />:t�t��itional use permit and wetland buffer permit, subject to <br />���lx� change to those being the amendment to the third <br />x°fi��' be 25 feet in height or less. He advised that this item <br />�g before the City Council on April 24, and any additions or <br />uld be addressed at this time. <br />__ _ <br />__ _ __ <br />_ <br />_ <br />_ <br />�ner Miller inquired if the trash enclosures on the site had been addressed. Planning <br />Ericson indic;�;t�ed this was specified on the site plan. <br />�rson <br />the year 2000 be included in the date of adoption of the proposed <br />�;' o��.r.���y�c�ner Stevenson inquired if the relocated accessory building was a new structure on the <br />site. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was uncertain if the accessory building depicted on the <br />site plans would be saivaged from the site or if it would be a new structure. <br />Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that if the applicant constructs a new accessory building on <br />the site, they would be required to remove the existing structure. Chairperson Peterson noted the <br />existing structure appears to have been the garage that remained after the removal of a house. <br />