09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 • thecentralportion of the buildingthat protrudes is indicated within a Chairperson Peterson stated ce a couple feet of the setback line, however, the rest of the building has sufficient room in which the air- conditioning units could be placed on either side. Commissioner Stevenson stated noise might be an issue with the air conditioning units, and if so, they may wish to work further with staff in regard to • the screening and buffering. Chairperson Peterson stated that it was unanimous that all invQ:lved wantadequate screening, and it served no one's purpose to have the screening be less < dequatillio ted this could be accomplished either through the relocation of the fence, of additional ties=< p g d the fence between the back of the buildings. He stated enter.option as as gat deyu, l WIRMWS „p. Con. katCommissioner Kaden stated he would like to hear the re ater Wrigaki.9 ut regarding the r`preference inlegnanfi . regard to a view of the buffer area or the fence. Atellenme ::. 'Kc€:; ruga;W Johnson stated the air conditioners would b`e contained i aycessed area between the CommissionerJo so a :. `''. :».<"''`� 'ee or`four air conditioning and the building. Commissioner Laube stated the [uld requitti units for this building. Chairperson Peterson st to tl exde eloper wouldprobably utilize two-ton units,which were not very large. Commission it i'✓aub . hums,was correct, however, they could y a be noisy. Chairperson Peterson stated he ha one an 30n0.> al 'ta_zt urirt, which was virtually silent, and this would depend upon the types ofd is utilized. He` ed>>Mr. Smith if he was aware of the .;;yam ffk amount of noise generated by the proposed air inditioners Mr. Smith stated he thought these ould gene t ;moreOISe than typical residential units. He stated they would have four units. ; e .tated he had o o le n leaving the fence as it is, and using it as a buffer. Het `tel <.they would si: ply:like to moo tie fence back to the edge of the trees, to provide visibilit t »v the offic7401011tbknd room behind the building for security and maintenance reasons. Heeitailio.air condi t iiie nits could be screened separately, if they did not want the fence in that loca ex lai e nnettl""could provide additional landscaping around the units. He stated they wgistidk <to o what was beneficial, and what the residents desired. "* a: , x:;,; :v�>i. 'fir :; .:ergs:o imostioa _ a tev_en `ta t d, fet sy tand.oint he would _o without the fence. He stated ate;:<: in--a�� a fegghiding the back oflOoffice would invite vandalism. Mr. Smith stated he did not believe the th ter project had generated any additional vandalism problems. Commissioner Berke stated there ...: t' rrently reports ofiiridalism every week in his neighborhood. He stated two years prior to the te):'Opment,they did4 t have a problem with vandalism. He stated he was not certain this was the l ' h...c eve pment,Astr however, it appeared to attract kids. Chan er ri'Peterson stated that the issue at hand was to determine the process by which to amend the Planned Unit Development, if required. He stated the necessity for a change was unclear, in that the text states to refer to the drawing for details, and the construction drawing indicates a dotted line which shows the 50-foot building setback, and another portion of the line indicates a six foot privacy fence. Commissioner Johnson stated the approved plan shows the fence between the buildings, and • in his opinion, the matter does not require to be before the Planning Commission.