09-15-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • property. Jopke stated they had not. He noted, however, the residents had only been contacted in this regard by the developer. Chair Peterson stated it appeared to be unwise to reopen the entire Development Review process for this matter. Jopke stated staff could direct this question to the developer, in light of the new information, and determine how he would like to proceed. He noted another issue discussed at the prior meeting was that staff should work closely with the developer in regard to the location of the air-conditioning units, and insure they are screened and do not generate a noise problem for the neighborhood. Commissioner Hegland stated there had appeared to be a general impression that there was a requirement for a continuous fence. He inquired if this matter is required to be addressed with a formal action. Chair Peterson agreed this was the general impression brought forward. He stated the Planning Commission did not have a clear answer in this regard. Jopke commented this may have been a matter of semantics, in that there was discussion of continuous screening of the Theater Project parking lot and activities that occur at the site, and it might be easy to conclude that the screening be a fence, versus buildings and a fence. He stated the important issue was that the parking lot be screened from the neighborhood. The buildings in fact provide a major portion of that requirement, and with the fence between buildings, the developers are technically providing a continuous screen. Commissioner Miller noted that much emphasis had been placed on the fence, rather than the fact that there would be three offices at the location. Jopke stated it was clear that it was appropriate to construct the fence prior to the construction of the building in order to provide the screening, however, now that the building is constructed, it provides that function. Chair Peterson commented another item for consideration was to determine the appropriate review process for minor changes to a PUD. He stated it appeared there should be some simple level of process for very minor changes, and determination regarding which changes are minor and which are not. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. He added they have obtained the opinion of the City Attorney in regard to the fence requirement at the Theater Project, however, there was also a necessity to clarify the process in the ordinance, for future PUDs. He stated he would be working with the City Attorney's office to draft appropriate language in this regard, and bring that forward to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. B. Discussion of Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Carroll stated in contrast to the mandatory work the Planning Commission is conducting in regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the Economic Development Section is referred to by the Metropolitan Council as an optional plan. He added that many of the • cities that have submitted their Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council have not included