11-03-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 • PlanningAssociate Ericson stated staff has consulted with the CityForester who has rovided his P recommendations regarding the landscape plan, which has been revised to indicate appropriate species, as specified in the applicant's response to the Staff Report. Planning Associate Ericson indicated, as discussed at previous meetings, the applicant will attempt to restrict westbound traffic entering the site from County Road I, and the exit at:,ts`location will be clearly marked "exit only," to prevent any circulation problems or potential.traific issues. Sieto„Planning Associate Ericson stated another matter brought rw rd at previousi stings was thataa sidewalk would be required along Mounds View Drive. Hc-teferred to t sitiltige ich indicated the areas where sidewalks will be constructed, and explained that.igre sidewalks ztll oin the existing sidewalk along County Road I. He indicated thati .'idewal would followtirag meter of the site, and connect to the SuperAmerica access, to all'I* .:,ingress and egress ofpedestrian traffic inthat '' area. `�'�" Planning Associate Ericson stated the specifications for the garbageumst :enclosure, as indicated in theplans submittedre f :<:<._ »::.»>: <.... by the applicant, meet with., t 1 uirements `sp: ` � ;fir f,, •;�.:>.. ::F>: s`z :...:::> :>:;;Ae;: >:.:. Chair Peterson noted there had been some::::. uestiori:r itillt:..theta ccurac of the scale of the building. Planning Associate Ericson ex.,gained that. i e eltyM dicated on theprevious plans F>> dry..,::>.::..:....:_ were not accurate, however, the revise scale is.a curate, a ttAtd cates the topmost height of the • :::hat it building to be 37 feet. He explainedlt the maximum heft allowed is 45 feet, and the structure is within that requirement. ""h" ` > Planning Associate Ericson ated the applicantk does not propose to install any lighting on the building. p'lained the' i t` pPlan indicates the proposed lighting, and the foot-candle readings are all within 0 Code rekigtObAtk in terms of glare, and light spillage onto the surrounding •Vatiproperties. :: <^ $ " a.4 '» . Planning Amit s <;stated n'o i igna e plans have been submitted at this time, however, the g applican ::as indicated tha any signage will comply with the City Code and the Conditional Use Permit'quirements. l i 'pointed out that the Conditional Use Permit sets a maximum size of 32 squ.,; ��>feet for signage, an twill review the signage based upon this requirement, if the applicant h. t provided plans forthis by the next meeting of the Planning Commission. He added that the si ; age issues could a, obe reviewed at the Council level. > <, >_o i ired if the applicant has indicated the type of signage they might utilize at the stght. s= s a:: Mike Lewis, representative ofMSP Real Estate, the applicant indicated their facilities typically utilize wooden signs, set in block foundations. Planning Associate Ericson advised that all of the Development Review requirements appear to be • met, and there are no outstanding issues. He explained that staff will require the plans be revised to