09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 • to be only indicated at the sides of the fence buildings. He stated the plans were unclear, and he could not interpret the fence requirement, however, all of the indications provided, point to a fence that is between the buildings. Ms. Olsen stated the way this matter was explained, and proceeded foremonths, .sed upon the original Planned Unit Development, which was approved. She stated the e. as upposed to be a continuous fence in the back. She stated this was a majorissue. She sug ested the Planning Commission review the minutes and videotape of the 4010 Cou <meetings, as the fencs requirements were clearly spelled out therein. She stated the==present un : a >< the reasonwe entire matter should follow the normal Planned Unit Development process Shetatethsruld clarification, and there wo''� be no mi'sre resentatioto ; itizens provide one hundred percent c a t�.;;..:..,..; ,� P t , in regard to what was to occur. , . ;,< >F< Chairperson Peterson stated that the only document that wasnott< 'ear was.>:the construction plan, and all of the others are very clear. Ms. Olsen stated this was=snot the waFeatter was represented to the citizens on the Planned Unit Development document=<kShe noted e prior Mayor had stated the Planned Unit Development document superseded>i> ny yi p a drawing` draft. She stated it was explained explicitly that there would be a continuous fe ibind thebuilding, and it would be opaque, and of a certain height. She stated it vas further stated:that:: othing would encroach into the buffer zone. . . Ms. Olsen stated the fence requirementw2as not ie only is ue present. She stated another issue was in regard to making any type of ci es to a PlannedkUn`>:_ evelopment, and following through with the entire no al process. t:ted this was;tzl >fair thing to do. She stated to do otherwise differet acould su ; , provisio zyinterpretations Chairperson tierNstated they ,resently attempting to verify the official approved Planned ent,t Unit Developm ;terms ote<:'<;tten text, and the documents that are part of the approved Planned Unit; e ;el n nt:.. Nor Jopke lead pai a.gt. ;<.'., :' = armed Unit—Development-doeurent, enti-tled—Buffand Scr, ; :ng Fence indicatesa :s: Bening fence shall be installed along County Road H-2 (as shown on th- :-velopment Stage :v:an), and tied off on each end to prevent pedestrian traffic from the PUD opment off the s'tThe fence shall be opaque and at least six feet in height." Mill r stated the Development plan indicates the fence just between the buildings. . ; t,:.:, ; terson explained that the construction plans show a dotted line which is in between theeItaiingSr and no where else. Commissioner Kaden stated these plans show the office building extending up to the 50-foot buffer line. Chairperson Peterson stated this was correct. Jop.kestated it appeared, in looking at the actual design of the building that was being proposed, the building jogs back from the 50-foot line, and there was room to put air conditioning units. •