Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> • <br /> Commissioner Kaden inquired if the Department of Public Works had made any indications regarding <br /> the plans for redeveloping the road in the future. Jopke stated not to his knowledge. Chairperson <br /> Peterson noted that if County Road H-2 was being considered for turnback. Jopke stated it had <br /> already been turned back. Chairperson Peterson noted that there were funds available for the <br /> reconstruction. Jopke stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson stated the width of the road, <br /> therefore, was controlled by the City. Jopke stated this was correct, and the roadway would go <br /> through the planning and redevelopment process being developed by the City Council based on the <br /> recommendations of the Streets Policies Committee. <br /> Chairperson Peterson inquired if there would be a 33-foot right-of-way on the north side of the <br /> property, and 43 feet on the south. Jopke stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson inquired if <br /> this distance was consistent across the entire area. Jopke stated the width jogs in the middle. <br /> Chairperson Peterson stated generally, when a road is reconstructed, the jogs are straightened out. <br /> Mr. Smith stated the residents he had spoken with had indicated they would like to see a sidewalk <br /> along the north side, due to the pedestrian traffic, and concerns for safety. <br /> Commissioner Stevenson suggested that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the <br /> City Council regarding the public hearings, with a statement that they were agreeable to the fence <br /> • between the buildings. He stated he did not think the Commission could come to a consensus that <br /> there was ever the intention to have a continuous fence behind the offices. <br /> Chairperson Peterson stated he believed the actual continuous fence requirement was intended only <br /> until the buildings were constructed. Commissioner Stevenson stated he believed the fence was also <br /> required for security reasons. Commissioner Johnson stated this was correct, and to provide shielding <br /> from the parking area. He stated he had a problem in regard to the continuous fence located behind <br /> the building, because it would allow for people to be concealed behind the buildings at night, and <br /> would provide no visibility for the Police Department. <br /> Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle, stated the drawing of the site shows the continuous fence <br /> behind all of the offices. She stated her main concern was that this was a Planned Unit Development. <br /> She stated the major controversy on this project, or any others contemplated in the future, was due <br /> to the alteration of the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning. She stated this property was changed <br /> to a Planned Unit Development, and she believed it should follow the normal proper procedure of a <br /> Planned Unit Development. She stated if not, they would set a precedent, which would come up <br /> again in future projects. She stated this was not right or fair to the citizens, especially in light of the <br /> manner in which this project has proceeded. <br /> Ms. Olsen stated the fence requirement had not been met, therefore, everyone should be provided a <br /> new copy of the current amended Development Plan, which will supersede any drawing. She stated <br /> that the requirement for the fence was indicated at a certain height, and that it would be opaque. She <br /> stated this was done for many reasons, not just for safety reasons, or as a temporary consideration. <br /> • <br />