09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • Commissioner Kaden inquired if the Department of Public Works had made any indications regarding the plans for redeveloping the road in the future. Jopke stated not to his knowledge. Chairperson Peterson inquired if County Road H-2 was being considered for turnback. Jopke stated it had already been turned back. Chairperson Peterson noted that there were funds available for the reconstruction. Jopke stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson stated the width of the road therefore, was controlled by the City. Jopke stated this was correct, and the roadway would o th ough the planning and redevelopment process being developed by the City Cou�n '1 based.: =' ecommendations of ASP the Streets Policies Committee. <>::<<,»>=<j:><<:~.>:>:»::::. ,> Chairperson Peterson inquired if there would be a 33-fact right-of way on the .tinsidek 'the property, and 43 feet on the south. Jopke stated this was:correct. <Chairperson Peterson i quired if this distance was consistent across the entire area. Jop *st ted the width jogs n the middle. Chairperson Peterson stated generally, when a road is recotrd,;the jogs are straightened out. Mr. Smith stated the residents he had spoken with had indicated t :uould like to see a sidewalk along the north side, due to the pedestrian traffic, and cb'ncerns forlafiti* dank VoNNOw Commissioner Stevenson suggested that the Plantgsion provi`de_a recommendation to the City Council regarding the public hearings, th a stat`eme :t_'itat*thewere agreeable to the fence between the buildings. He stated he did nOt'think the Com tss one uld come to a consensus that there was ever the intention to have a continuous*Ace beltte offices. Ar� Chairperson Peterson stated he belie: d"the actual continuous fence requirement was intended only 110 until the buildings were constructs t`Commis t ner Stevenson stated he believed the fence was also required for urity reasons" 1 ,`'.,. issioner o *.on tated this was correct, and to provide shielding from the ku i area. He t to < :e had a pit in regard to the continuous fence located behind the building,�q ause it would<allo for people to be concealed behind the buildings at night, and would rov d"' o `sibilit for ` olice;De artment. OW ""'e °" von 'tthe drawingof the site shows the continuous fence Julie Olsen:� t3 « e><> t3urt Cirele> stated behind all ::•the offices: t`=::staed her main concern was that this was a Planned Unit Development. She st4:eiFt - ';q:; < :.. hi set—or- r-s -othe -ee- -ated-in-thc f-utu-re, was-due to t Alteration of the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning. She stated this property was changed to >$.:anned Unit Develo pent, and she believed it should follow the normal proper procedure of a P 1-.:4,!.::ed Unit Developzent. She stated if not, they would set a precedent, which would come up ar :> future projectShe stated this was not right or fair to the citizens, especially in light of the hlc,,l tl Is project has proceeded. Ms: ated the fence requirement had not been met, therefore, everyone should be provided a new copy of the current amended Development Plan, which will supersede any drawing. She stated that the requirement for the fence was indicated at a certain height, and that it would be opaque. She stated this was done for many reasons, not just for safety reasons, or as a temporary consideration. •