Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> • <br /> Commissioner Berke stated the original zoning of the property was R-2 and B-1, and this had been <br /> changed. Jopke stated this was correct. He explained the zoning had been changed to Planned Unit <br /> Development to allow for this development. <br /> Commissioner Berke inquired if the original setback requirement for the buffer was `0 feet. Jopke <br /> stated he was not present during the preliminary discussion of the project and was uncertain, <br /> however, he was aware that the approved plans required a 500pot bugorimgle <br /> logook <br /> Commissioner Berke inquired if the architect's original design included a:c ntinu s ence along. be <br /> buffer, and if this proposal was the result of a mistakeyin that plan Jopleq#Amojtothe <br /> development stage plan and the final plan consisted of fe: sconn...•cted to the buill.i g e:stated <br /> this was what was presented to the City and approved. AStanak <br /> Commissioner Berke inquired if noise level testing had beenirettimmt4etermine the effect of the <br /> air conditioners in the closer proximity to County Road I-1=2. Jopk&Agatiliis had not been done, to <br /> his knowledge. . ste:� : NO <br /> Aggiumgasoph ;Sr <br /> Wendell Smith, representative of AnthonyPropert y tat d :he-current proposal was due to a <br /> mistake for which he took full responsibility. He aftgtelt4trogoPttemptedstated to construct a very <br /> attractive building for the City. He staved he had convin fW Anthony to construct a more <br /> elaborate type of building, which would` tend in :ell with the'Theater building, in light of the many <br /> people who would be going past twitosthe on a. ly basis..ge stated he had become involved in the <br /> design of the building to make it of only altheticallyzieealing, but also functional from an office <br /> oltiv <br /> use standpoi He stated, howe'<er, the fe 4 ti overlooked. <br /> ,�_:„ �>: a nom' <br /> MarlaMik "gilt."' <br /> Mr. Smit s developmentw4ftdeveibilvittiMpgt through the approval process, and no one caught the fence <br /> including the' ui di :>inspecta :w ;Maxed the matter came to their attention when the building <br /> b -0y F � f f.".. <br /> contractor began} : o truction; e_ :ted the fence was taken down, and he examined the site <br /> e`n ' constructed. He stated he noticed the existingpole, and its relation to <br /> when the footi�tl ' �<l�etrlg>:... <br /> the back o h'e buildnigVogdailiged the fence was too close to the building. He stated he inquired <br /> how t •. d-happened,a i ding-contr-actoc-i-ndicated-his-w--a-s-the-deign—and-if-it-presented <br /> a problem they would nigtthe fence back and no one would notice the difference. He stated, <br /> ho <br /> er, that this woulot be proper. <br /> stated the reaso `he went to the neighbors regarding the fence was to be proactive. He stated <br /> l er"Thomason indicated this should be considered a petition, however, he did not <br /> CVT;;; itron. He stated he had gone to the neighbors to make them aware of what was <br /> happening the site, and that he had made a mistake regarding the fence. He stated his intent was <br /> not to take anything away from the buffer area. <br /> Mr. Smith stated that no large trees would be removed from the buffer area. He stated there was a <br /> small tree, approximately two inches wide, which may need to be removed. He stated he had spoken <br /> with the City Forester regarding the affect of the relocation of the fence upon the buffer zone. He • <br />