09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 • Chairperson Peterson stated the central portion of the building that protrudes is indicated within a couple feet of the setback line, however, the rest of the building has sufficient room in which the air- conditioning units could be placed on either side. Commissioner Stevenson stated noise might be an issue with the air conditioning units, and if so, they may wish to work further with staff in regard to the screening and buffering. Chairperson Peterson stated that it was unanimous that all involved wanted adequate screening, and it served no one's purpose to have the screening be less than adequate. He stated this could be accomplished either through the relocation of the fence, with additional trees being placed, or with the fence between the back of the buildings. He stated either option was as good, in his opinion. Commissioner Kaden stated he would like to hear the residents' input regarding their preference in regard to a view of the buffer area or the fence. Commissioner Johnson stated the air conditioners would be contained in a recessed area between the fence and the building. Commissioner Laube stated they would require three or four air conditioning units for this building. Chairperson Peterson stated the developer would probably utilize two-ton units, which were not very large. Commissioner Laube stated this was correct, however, they could 1111 be noisy. Chairperson Peterson stated he had a one and one-half ton unit, which was virtually silent, and this would depend upon the types of units utilized. He asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of the amount of noise generated by the proposed air conditioners. Mr. Smith stated he thought these would generate no more noise than typical residential units. He stated they would have four units. He stated he had no problem leaving the fence as it is, and using it as a buffer. He stated they would simply like to move the fence back to the edge of the trees, to provide visibility out of the office building, and room behind the building for security and maintenance reasons. He noted the air conditioning units could be screened separately, if they did not want the fence in that location. He explained they could provide additional landscaping around the units. He stated they would like to do what was beneficial, and what the residents desired. . .. a fence hiding the back of the office would invite vandalism. Mr. Smith stated he did not believe the theater project had generated any additional vandalism problems. Commissioner Berke stated there are currently reports of vandalism every week in his neighborhood. He stated two years prior to the development,they did not have a problem with vandalism. He stated he was not certain this was the fault of the development, however, it appeared to attract kids. Chairperson Peterson stated that the issue at hand was to determine the process by which to amend the Planned Unit Development, if required. He stated the necessity for a change was unclear, in that the text states to refer to the drawing for details, and the construction drawing indicates a dotted line • which shows the 50-foot building setback, and another portion of the line indicates a six foot privacy fence. Commissioner Johnson stated the approved plan shows the fence between the buildings, and in his opinion, the matter does not require to be before the Planning Commission.