Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 15 <br /> Ms. Olsen requested the Planning Commission to follow the normal procedures of the Planned Unit <br /> Development, and not make deviations from it. She stated to do so would be very wrong. She stated <br /> it was her understanding, if the air conditioners were protruding from the building, and that was the <br /> reason that the fence would be required to jog, in her opinion, was that the building was already in <br /> the buffer zone. <br /> Ms. Olson stated people were very unhappy regarding the 50-foot buffer, and had always wanted a <br /> 100-foot buffer. She stated there was a lot of neighborhood input in this regard. She stated the <br /> project was not completed, and if this change was viewed as so minor it did not warrant a full-fledged <br /> Planned Unit Development procedure, what would happen when the next building is constructed, or <br /> with the next Planned Unit Development. She stated the Comprehensive Plan map proposed by the <br /> Planning Commission as they move forward with the new Comprehensive Plan, indicate a large <br /> amount of property being changed and rezoned as Planned Unit Developments. She stated this <br /> should be examined. She stated if these types of changes were allowed, without following proper <br /> procedure, it could result in many problems for the City. <br /> Chairperson Peterson stated one of the issues in regard to the procedure was to determine if this <br /> proposal is a change or a request. He stated it appeared at this point, the continuous fence <br /> requirement was not contained in the original plan that was officially approved. He stated the matter <br /> • does require further investigation. <br /> Mr. Smith inquired if staff could verify the stipulations contained in the final plan. Jopke stated the <br /> plan that was approved by the City Council at the Development Stage indicated the fence to be <br /> located between the buildings. <br /> Commissioner Kaden inquired which plan Ms. Olsen was referring to. Jopke stated this document <br /> was the plan submitted for the building permit, and upon which the building permits were issued. He <br /> stated the matter was unclear, and, in his interpretation, it appeared the developer could construct the <br /> solid fence between the buildings and not require an amendment. He stated, if the neighborhood <br /> desired a continuous solid screening fence along the area, it would make sense to allow the jog in the <br /> fence. <br /> Commissioner Hegland stated the issue was whether or not there was any statement in the plans, <br /> which stipulates continuous fencing once the building is constructed. Jopke stated that the Planned <br /> Unit Development document stipulates a six-foot, opaque screen fence, however, it does not specify <br /> that this is to be constructed only between the buildings, or as a continuous fence at the rear of the <br /> buildings. Commissioner Hegland stated the plan drawing indicates the fence to be between the <br /> buildings. He stated it might not have been well communicated, however, that is what was <br /> represented on the drawing. <br /> 1111 Commissioner Stevenson stated this matter might be a non-issue. He stated these were the final plans <br /> that the Commissioners received, and they did not show the fence to be located behind the office <br /> buildings, only between. Chairperson Peterson stated the six-foot high fence requirement appeared <br />