09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 III Mr. Smith stated there had been numerous neighborhood meetings, and discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council in regard to the buffer zone. He stated the buffer zone was amended to the current 50-foot requirement, based upon five or six different plans for the location of the buildings. He stated they were requesting the ability to move the fence back slightly,just behind the buildings, and no other place. „:,:for 4114,Apoo' Chairperson Peterson stated one issue was the placement of: he air conditioners, and one' of the ' 'x Rev:'::�:.�3%y><' `,'�::?.. memorandums indicated these were pad mounted, residential tyle air conditioners, to be install directlyagainst the buildings. Mr. Smith stated there would be eight to ten`inche ''b`e t een the u is and the building to allow for evaporation. F" `a ` '`"" "' Commissioner Hegland inquired if the air conditioners were-rt e.,A reason for the screen fence. Mr. Smith stated this was correct, as well as to provide some b f r from the visibility of the windows behind the building. Commissioner Hegland inquired if omii4 ith would prefer to look out the windows at the fence, or the landscape buffer. Mr. Smith Mated lie'` € t . rifer to remove the fence completely, if he could. He explained if he was an ofbc se: he would at r look at the landscaped P buffer area. He noted however, they had made ma.clOttatilat,to include inolOgglie fence. Commissioner Hegland stated he was o the unde anding s ;t l�e original plan indicated the buildings would be up to the buffer lineand there*ould ol ,te `ence between the buildings. He inquired if the fence was to cover TIN e air conditionersf r Smith stated one of the reasons the residents wanted the fence originallas to pride a vishield between the residential area and III the property line. He stated at that=>time the f ce was::di .ussed, the building was not constructed, and the residents desired a visual, ":trier between e p skin lot and the lights. He stated the office >. .a g g buildingwouldadd to the:£buffer; of onlyfrom t ;e noise standpoint, but also in regard to. the light. He stated `<e e a l ested h lig eels g CountyRoad H-2, and determined it does impact the '��F: '� :t.... li..dee alongP neighborhood :. < . Commissione e'� ` tate e.agree t at the developer's petition was not valid. He stated, in light of the controversysuiu '><the development, a neutral partyshould have performed it. Co :: ssioner Hegland tat d#the fence was also to provide a shield of the view of the trash en .,ta ures from County Road H-2. Jopke stated the plan indicates the fence between the buildings, .4 k.- fence on each egg% shield in that location. ::;:gin. %.,:4:7' `'.signer, to ;enson stated he thought the area would be much more attractive to the residents t t hefence Commissioner Kaden stated the developer should discuss this matter with the residst determine what they would like to see in this area. Commissioner Miller stated she had driven by the property and could barely see the building. She stated the trees in the buffer would shield the fence from visibility. Mr. Smith noted that during the wintertime, when the leaves are off of the trees, the building would become more visible. 110