|
Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999
<br /> - Regular Meeting Page 9
<br /> III
<br /> Jopke stated the first issue is the impact of this particular proposal. He stated the developer could
<br /> just connect the buildings with the fence, and technically meet the plan, which would represent no
<br /> change to the approved development stage plan. He stated there would be windows in the office
<br /> building looking out toward the residential neighborhood, and this would not provide the solid screen,
<br /> especially during the wintertime, when the leaves are off the trees, that the neighborhood might
<br /> desire. He stated it appears the provision of a continuous fence that jogs aitituld the buildings would
<br /> provide a better screen for that neighborhood. He stated it should be dOntningcr what effect would
<br /> this have on the 50-foot buffer area.
<br /> 4.1W ireilEALL. ,.:4-#'
<br /> taf op- `<iit**,:oww, ,1,63V.
<br /> Jopke stated the City Forester has reviewed the developer',-,.! roposalutipd has intogsksgEtptisal
<br /> did not pose any great impact to the buffer area. He statedthat some trees, g100.010 tree,
<br /> which would need to be removed in order to proceed. He stated tikdeveloper has agetizillo replace
<br /> any of these trees, over four inches in diameter, with two for lost. He stated it appeared
<br /> there would be little impact upon the buffer area in this re,atoiwittpp sal could in fact, provide
<br /> additional, more substantial trees than those that currently exist.
<br /> illient6,
<br /> Of& NiMPO.
<br /> Jopke stated the Planning Commission had been.prtimdataliftipemorandet,from Council Members
<br /> .,rpormemsemb,:.. .:,*::•$.,
<br /> Lynn Thomason and Rob Marty, which indicated their concerns rewarding or not there would
<br /> be sufficient room in this area for bike paths and other pedestrian at the time the road is
<br /> Sy .A, Nemall.tp--
<br /> reconstructed in the future. „AT it
<br /> .,...:.pis ,..o
<br /> 0 Jopke stated he and Planning Associate Ericson taken measurements at the site, and found that
<br /> 44, 4-rp
<br /> there is a 33-foot right-of-way on the north sicl.kgoupd,bad H-2, adjacent to the site, in addition
<br /> to the 50-foot buffer between the and tliiii00#90>of the fence. He stated the buffer area was
<br /> maintaingin.guired by the development stage plans. He stated there was a 43-foot
<br /> right-ofattiwilksoutliligtit the road. He stated depending upon the final design of County
<br /> Road 11-2,latiOjitikbe sufficient golfor a pedestrian pathway, if that were part of the plan for
<br /> ---mion.00,
<br /> this road.
<br /> easourat, Inv
<br /> Ait''''. #5111aPAIN -1r .
<br /> Jopke stated another cia#001.,Ate determined was the process utilized by which this change should -
<br /> _ take 1.?4-0. He stated titr t ; .i,or change, which could be approved by a recommendation from
<br /> X
<br /> the ' • g Commission WiWity Council, and a determination regarding the type of public forum
<br /> ,w le
<br /> de .0c1. He stated the developer has spoken with the property owners along County Road H-2, in
<br /> r01. 1 to the proposal, and some have indicated they were agreeable, three indicated they were
<br /> 6.,:RoEs
<br /> ctsgq :7,.d, and two were imavailable for comment, at that time.
<br /> 111*441k. 440,
<br /> Istrtok."-ogoor. .
<br /> ivoilpaSopPranning Commission might desire to set a public hearing regarding this matter, and
<br /> notOiNteileighbors. lie stated at this time, staff had not notified the property owners. He stated
<br /> staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission regarding which process to utilize. He
<br /> stated Wendell Smith, representative of the developer, was present to answer questions regarding the
<br /> proposal.
<br /> 1110
<br />
|