08-15-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________ would prefer a more natural buffer, the drawback is that it would take years to fully screen the parking area when a fence would provide for immediate screening. In this case, input from adjacent residents would be helpful. Planning Associate Atkinson noted the building exhibits an aesthetically pleasing, context- sensitive residential appearance. Materials to be used include brick on the lower portion of the walls, vinyl siding on the remainder of the wall, and steel panel roofing. He presented elevation drawings and indicated Staff feels it will blend in well with the neighborhood. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the applicants are proposing two wall signs and one ground sign for their facility. The ground sign will be located on the southern portion of the property, approximately twenty (20) feet from the property line. The sign meets the setback requirement of fifteen (15) feet. The two wall signs will be located on the southwest and southeast sides of the building, respectively. The elevation drawings show the location of the signs, but do not show the size of the signs. The ground signs may be a maximum of 100 square feet in total area for all ground signs. Planning Associate Atkinson stated if the Planning Commission believes it has received sufficient information from staff, residents and the applicant, it may act on Resolution 670-01, a resolution recommending approval of the development review for the Mounds View Animal Hospital. If the Planning Commission feels that the applicants have not adequately addressed these issues, they should table the review until the next meeting to allow the applicants time to provide more information to satisfy the Commission. Commissioner Johnson asked if a condition can be added to the development agreement to require a fence to be erected should the fence owned by the apartments be removed at some point in time. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that condition could be added. Community Development Director Ericson clarified that the fence on Silver Lake Commons was constructed as part of a development review and is required for their development so it cannot be removed. Commissioner Miller asked how large the staff will be at any one time. Dr. Kevin Barcus, applicant, estimated eight to ten. Commissioner Miller asked if proof of parking is an option since their staff level is low and there would be adequate parking spaces. She suggested requiring additional green space and proof of parking rather than 27 parking spaces. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the revision to require additional landscaping and green space with proof of parking in lieu of parking could be done. Dr. Barcus stated he would also support more green space but is unsure how the site can be reconfigured to create more green space. He noted that the refuse area could be moved closer to the building to provide additional green space.