09-15-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Scontacted all of the neighbors on his street, and they have indicated they are in favor of the proposal. He stated, had this not been the case, he would not have pursued it. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller. To Approve Resolution 594-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Oversized Garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road; Mound View Planning Case No. 569-99. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item would be considered at the October 27, 1999 meeting of the City Council. 7. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Update regarding change in location of screen fence at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD (Theater Project.) Community Development Director Jopke updated the Commission regarding the issue of the screen fence at the Theater Project. He stated this issue was discussed at the last meeting of the Planning 1110 Commission, and at that time, staff was directed to obtain a legal opinion and review the files in more detail, to clarify the fence requirement. Community Development Director Jopke stated he had reviewed the files, Planning Commission and City Council minutes, resolutions and PUD agreements, and could find nothing that specifically required a continuous fence. He stated he had forwarded those documents to the City Attorney's office for review, and the City Attorney has indicated, from a legal standpoint, a fence connecting the buildings is the only requirement presented. He noted if the developer wishes to provide a continuous fence and locate it six feet into the buffer area around the buildings, it would require an amendment to the approved PUD development stage plan. He explained this would entail formal review by the Planning Comission and City Council. Community Development Director Jopke commented he had attempted to contact Wendell Smith, representative of the developer, however had not been able to speak with him at this time. He requested the Planing Commission discuss this matter, and direct staff in regard to whether or not they concur that, if the developer chose to connect the buildings with a fence, they would be in compliance, and the matter would not require the additional approvals. He stated the other issue to consider is the potential amendment to the PUD agreement, should the developer wish to move the fence behind the building. Chairperson Peterson inquired if staff and the City Attorney's conclusions were the same as the Planning Commission's determination at the prior meeting. Jopke stated this was correct. Chair Peterson inquired if staff had received any input from the residents immediately to the south of the