09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 IIII Commissioner Kaden stated that the future redevelopment of County Road H-2 might result in the loss of a portion of the buffer zone. Chairperson Peterson stated Mr. Smith was correct in that there was very little difference in the appearance of the building as that indicated on the plans. He inquired if the rear of thebbuilding was also as proposed. Mr. Smith stated they had upgraded it a bit. _ _ _ Chairperson Peterson stated he had originally been concerned regard<tt t in° £suer and the types of trees it contained, and particularly the health of the trees:.rHe stated:_ e"_h`a _ ime looking t the property, and had found that so many of the oak treks were already sick an ld, be ne within five years. Mr. Smith stated that the area had contained4n enormous am runt`i' rbage, which required removal, and it was utilized as a meeting p c or teenagers. He stab womt was not a park area, and since the completion of the project they haveaha relpove several trees which have died,for safety reasons. He stated they have a very good working wataititieibuship with the City Forester in regard to the maintenance of the buffer area. V' lirjrata Chairperson Peterson stated one of the purposesAc c as to pre erpedestrian cut-through, and this would be accomplished if the fence is,. fated behind 4.ehilidgftbuildigg., or connects the buildings. Mr. Smith stated he agreed. Chairperson<rPeterson s`tated< e did na find the appearance from the back of the building to be objectionable. He stated;:tat givenlve choice, he would prefer to look at Ill 'wou trees than buildings, however, betwee 'trees, hild rather look at the buildings than the fence. ;,:. s He stated he could not speak fe� ll 'reside><� �, but he.�Ossumed they might come to the same conclusion. Aer 4 ;< hi ` diCommiss . r: evensoxsatd.�:athe s ��o1estran traffic through this area was the major concern :q :€ner Mill at his was correct. Commissioner Stevenson stated another issue `z'�t>t was the shl , ba e c ' aWthis would not be lost if the fence were maintained between the buildings. .,`es ti he •did notvre 'a •stipulation that the fence be continuous. He stated the developer mi _ :t= ed to theldegree he thought. ,.•u.Q.; • '- - •. ."'=''0 4 :k:' :, -• one . .. •.•• . ••_ . •n in_• fen - however, it may have only been in the original plan> d he was uncertain if this requirement was stipulated in the revised pl..Commissioner Kagan stated he had taken a look at the property, and it appeared to him that p o4:f the building is 4lzeady behind the fence post, which marks the buffer area, by a foot or two. AW it 3 a.. ed if this is t ase,the developer would probably have no option. He stated, it appeared by a; ,, r e,con action was already past the fence line. Mr. Smith stated he was uncertain. He ": I<i`t'the fence post was located just behind the building. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the measurements taken by Community Development Director Jopke and Planning Associate Ericson. Jopke stated they had determined the area from the center of the road to the fence post at the Edgewood Drive entrance to be approximately 84 feet, which would indicated a 33 foot right-of-way, with an approximate 50-foot buffer area. III