09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Berke stated the original zoning of the property was R-2 and B-1, and this had been changed. Jopke stated this was correct. He explained the zoning had been changed to Planned Unit Development to allow for this development. Commissioner Berke inquired if the original setback requirement for the buffer was 100 feet. Jopke stated he was not present during the preliminary discussion of the project and was uncertain, however, he was aware that the approved plans required a 50-foot buffer. Commissioner Berke inquired if the architect's original design included a continuous fence along the buffer, and if this proposal was the result of a mistake in that plan. Jopke indicated that the development stage plan and the final plan consisted of fences connected to the buildings. He stated this was what was presented to the City and approved. Commissioner Berke inquired if noise level testing had been performed to determine the effect of the air conditioners in the closer proximity to County Road H-2. Jopke stated this had not been done, to his knowledge. Wendell Smith, representative of Anthony Properties stated the current proposal was due to a • mistake for which he took full responsibility. He stated they had attempted to construct a very attractive building for the City. He stated he had convinced Mr. Anthony to construct a more elaborate type of building, which would blend in well with the Theater building, in light of the many people who would be going past the area on a daily basis. He stated he had become involved in the design of the building to make it not only aesthetically appealing, but also functional from an office use standpoint. He stated, however, the fence had been overlooked. Mr. Smith stated the development went through the approval process, and no one caught the fence including the building inspector. He stated the matter came to their attention when the building contractor began the construction. He stated the fence was taken down, and he examined the site when the footings were being constructed. He stated he noticed the existing pole, and its relation to the back of the building, and realized the fence was too close to the building. He stated he inquired how this had happened, and the building contractor indicated this was the design, and if it presented a problem they would move the fence back and no one would notice the difference. He stated, however, that this would not be proper. Smith stated the reason he went to the neighbors regarding the fence was to be proactive. He stated that Council Member Thomason indicated this should be considered a petition, however, he did not consider it a petition. He stated he had gone to the neighbors to make them aware of what was happening at the site, and that he had made a mistake regarding the fence. He stated his intent was not to take anything away from the buffer area. • Mr. Smith stated that no large trees would be removed from the buffer area. He stated there was a small tree, approximately two inches wide, which may need to be removed. He stated he had spoken with the City Forester regarding the affect of the relocation of the fence upon the buffer zone. He