Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 15 <br /> • Ms. Olsen requested the PlanningCommission to follow the normal procedures of the Planned Unit <br /> q <br /> Development, and not make deviations from it. She stated to do so would be very wrong. She stated <br /> it was her understanding, if the air conditioners were protruding from the building, and that was the <br /> reason that the fence would.be required to jog, in her opinion, was that the building was already in <br /> y f>\* <br /> the buffer zone. <br /> Atir <br /> ASK <br /> Ms. Olson stated people were very unhappy regarding the 50-.:cot bufferand ad always wanted a <br /> 100-foot buffer. She stated there was a lot of neighborhood input inlittskegatk She stated the: <br /> project was not completed, and if this change was viewed as. 'minor it did no t�arrant full-fledged <br /> 1 ha e:` when the e buildfilgtr' ' `i ' ' or <br /> Planned Unit Development procedure, what would pp � ,fzr� nom, n 6tct�, <br /> with the next Planned Unit Development. She stated the C mprehensive Plan map propAo edby the <br /> Planning Commission as they move forward with the newz rehensive Plan, indicate a large <br /> amount of property being changed and rezoned as PlannedltI Developments. She stated this <br /> '' re `ilo :4 without followingproper <br /> should be examined. She stated if these types of change � %verl� ::.-vgsm:i1�: p p <br /> procedure, it could.result in many problems for the CitSP. Nommposk. <br /> Chairperson Peterson stated one of the issues,..igte•:a oy_the procedure proceditiAvas to determine if this <br /> "mmlimaniproposal is a change or a request. He staled it appeared` t thisoint, the continuous fence <br /> "`roved. He stated the matter <br /> requirement was not contained in the origi�lplan that ?vas � � �� app <br /> does require further investigation. ; :F = <br /> AN A <br /> 4ris, <br /> Mr. Smith inquired if staff could v n the stipulations ca tained in the final plan. Jopke stated the <br /> plan that was approved by the pip Counciyaathe Development Stage indicated the fence to be <br /> located between the buildingtik. atmetaamprbuildings. <br /> 4.1rmimm. VOW <br /> Commis i en inquiredhi ,< lan Ms. Olsen was referringto. Jopke stated this document <br /> was the plan ` xtutte ;for the buildingennit, and upon which the building permits were issued. He <br /> stated the matte'...;.::•:41.141010r, ands°in his..: terpretation, it appeared the developer could construct the <br /> solid fence botalSogibittOgsbetween alitliOot require an amendment. He stated, if the neighborhood <br /> desired a...4,1iiiiiuous sOlid ci ing fence along the area, it would make sense to allow the jog in the <br /> orgo <br /> Ar. <br /> issioner Hegland:stated the issue was whether or not there was any statement in the plans, <br /> y`> stipulates continua:"< s fencing once the building is constructed. Jopke stated that the Planned <br /> -velopment do ument stipulates a six-foot, opaque screen fence, however, it does not specify <br /> <. .:_p°structed only between the buildings, or as a continuous fence at the rear of the <br /> •b :' :.^. nnnissioner Hegland stated the plan drawing indicates the fence to be between the <br /> buildtfHe stated it might not have been well communicated, however, that is what was <br /> represented. <br /> Commissioner Stevenson stated this matter might be a non-issue. He stated these were the final plans <br /> that the Commissioners received, and they did not show the fence to be located behind the office <br /> • buildings, only between. Chairperson Peterson stated the six-foot high fence requirement appeared <br />