10-06-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 Chair Peterson stated it appeared to be unwise to reopen the entire Development Review process for this matter. Jopke stated staff could direct this question to the developer, in light of the new information, and determine how he would like to proceed. He noted another issue discussed at the prior meeting was that staff should work closely with the developer in regard to the location of the air-conditioning units, and insure they are screened and do not generate a noise pblem for the neighborhood. 4 aletitY Commissioner Hegland stated there had appeared to be a,general itaprOVOt1 that there was a Amw requirement for a continuous fence. He inquired if this matterrequired to b" ad e'ss-.d with a forma action. ; 1_ Chair Peterson agreed this was the general impression ughtrward. He sta�b 'annin g« . Commission did not have a clear answer in this regard. ke mmented this may' ave been a matter of semantics, in that there was discussion of continuous> c ening of the Theater Project parking lot and activities that occur at the site, and mightto ea ;t elude that the screening be a fence, versus buildings and a fence. He stated the important'Aisy u >rthat the parking lot be screened from the neighborhood. The buildings in fa t provide a majoron of that requirement, Aomeand with the fence between buildings, the developerstechnically providing a continuous screen. 40"4- sestAr 0Commissioner Miller noted that much emphasis had been}placedthe__fence, rather than the fact that there would be three offices at the loc. tion. Jopke stated<t uts clear that it was appropriate to construct the fence prior to the construction of the building in order to provide the screening, however, now that the building is nstructedt provideshat function. 4fik dor ow A f" IretvgWr Chair Peterson=,commented tti r item fot° ` tion was to determine theappropriate review process : t or chanes=to`<:a PUD. He ktecteippearedstated there should be some simple level of processfor,t of change and< etermination regarding which changes are minor and which are not. title::. $" `x w .� Community , y..e'kp ;`< ` cfor Joke stated this was correct. He added they have obtained the opinion ., the City Attu' :,:gard to the fence requirement at the Theater Project, however, there was al .'a necessity to cl.'` ::::. process in the ordinance, for future PUlls. He stated he would be wor: ,:g with the City A . '7.0:.'s office to draft appropriate language in this regard, and bring that fo <rd to the Planning ; mmission at a future meeting. sma lam Air law B. Dis ;u cion of Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan L<..n : : ;e e`l'opment Coordinator Kevin Carroll stated in contrast to the mandatory work the ` 2 ' .mmission is conducting in regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the Economic Development Plait' Section is referred to by the Metropolitan Council as an optional plan. He added that many of the cities that have submitted their Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council have not included an Economic Development section. He noted, however, a number of months ago, he had decided S as the primary staff person to the Economic Development Commission, that this would be appropriate from a planning standpoint, as it would assist them in their consideration of the economic