My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-07-2006
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
06-07-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 10:07:10 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 10:06:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
6/7/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 15 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson stated that is also his concern. He stated he is not against townhomes but this <br />proposal would take the middle out of that area and with the three acre requirement for mixed <br />use development, there are not three acres left to the east or west. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson stated that the Commission needs to look at this application again and he would <br />like all seven Commissioners to be in attendance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch asked residents to look at what could go into this site with R-3 and as it <br />sits now so they have an idea of what the Commission is considering. <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />6. Other Planning Activity <br /> <br /> A. Review Additional City Code Language for Retaining Walls <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the issue is the <br />possible changing of the code to look at what a retaining wall would be, setbacks, fences and <br />terraces. The recommendation was to bring forward new language that defines what is a <br />retaining wall, indicate what the setback should be for a retaining wall, and address issues that <br />are unclear in the Code. He explained there was some confusion and a lack of clarity in terms of <br />whether a retaining wall could be or should be set back. The Planning Commission’s <br />recommendation had been that it be treated no differently than a fence so it could be located up <br />to, but not on a property line. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated that staff drafted a code amendment to define retaining walls and in <br />addition a definition for landscaping, which is an undefined requirement in Chapter 1103. <br />Another change is the addition of a new subdivision articulating prohibited materials for fences. <br /> <br />Director Ericson read the definition of landscaping, noting it provides a good idea of what <br />landscaping is in case there is a question in the future. He also reviewed the language proposed <br />to define a retaining wall, and location of a fence or retaining wall so it is treated similarly to a <br />fence. <br /> <br />Director Ericson then reviewed Section 7, Prohibited Materials, that define materials that cannot <br />be used and exceptions. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 834-06, a Resolution <br />Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Chapters 1102 and 1103 of the Mounds View <br />Zoning Code relating to Fences and Retaining Walls. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.