10-06-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller. To Approve Resolution 544-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Oversized Garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road; Mound View Planning Case No. 569-99. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 The motion carr'.-d. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item would be considered at the Oct z er 2r 999 meeting of the City Council. v`' 7. Staff Reports /Items of Information "ems ° . A. Update regarding change in location f' .>screen fence at he Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD (Theater Project. °:"`1Am" Community Development Director Jopke updated the Commissionx egardin :;the issue of the screen fence at the Theater Project. He stated this issue was di c j ssed at thelast m eting of the Planning Commission, and at that time, staff was directed detail, to clarifythe fence requirement. ' Y Community Development Director Jopke stated head reviewedthe files, Planning Commission and City Council minutes, resolutions ` UD agreements, did could find nothing that specifically required a continuous fence. He.taied he ha `f'orwarde those documents to the City Attorney's office for review, and the City .tto 'ey has indicated,from a legal standpoint, a fence connecting the buildings is •nly require : `. > resented. of ii tie developer wishes to provide a continuous fence an•. . .. ix feet 'It's C ' ��,`offer areaa�t'��tnd the buildings, it would require an amendment to the app<• :;t.. deve ®p e t s age plan. He explained this would entail formal review by the Planning Coria '` lCity Cosui ¢ Community !, ela "e Dir ctor J` e commented he had attempted to contact Wendell Smith, represeve of the o ; ;,e ,.khowever had not been able to speak with him at this time. He � �„>� gin. reque :>`+ the Planing Co is ihn discuss this matter, and direct staff in regard to whether or not the r :ncur that, if the v-el per chose to connect the buildings with a fence, they would be in Co' �"ance, and the mater would not require the additional approvals. He stated the other issue to Mer is the potentialmendment to the PUD agreement, should the developer wish to move the thind the b : e ng. erson inquired if staff and the City Attorney's conclusions were the same as the Plan i'_` 'ommission's determination at the prior meeting. Jopke stated this was correct. Chair Peterson inquired if staff had received any input from the residents immediately to the south of the property. Jopke stated they had not. He noted, however, the residents had only been contacted in this regard by the developer.