09-04-2019 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ property lines and setbacks. He reported the edge of the apron was three feet from the property line. He believed it made the most sense for the new driveway to align with the concrete apron. Commissioner Klander encouraged Mr. Rogers to rent a metal detector to try and locate the pins versus hiring a surveyor because this was quite expensive. Mr. Rogers thanked Commissioner Klander for making this suggestion. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Farmer. To approve Resolution 1106-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback at 8405 Red Oak Drive; Planning Case No. VR2019-004. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Monn) Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Boulevard Apartments – Discussion of Screening Community Development Director Sevald stated the Boulevard Apartments is being constructed at the corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road, and is nearing completion. As part of the approved Development Review, a 6’ cedar privacy fence is to be installed along the eastern property line with the intent of providing screening for homes along Groveland Road. The fence was a topic of discussion by the Planning Commission (August 16, 2017). A portion of the eastern property line is heavily wooded. Many trees will need to be removed in order to install the fence. Because the parking lot is at a higher elevation than the eastern property line, the fence would provide minimal screening compared to if the trees remained as-is. There are two alternatives: 1. Locate the fence on the west side of the woods (e.g. do not follow the property line). Doing so, preserves the woods as-is. The fence would act as a deterrent to trespass. 2. The Developer to meet with adjacent property owners, and mutually agree on the type of screening to be installed, likely a combination of fencing in open areas, and trees/shrubs in more wooded areas. Community Development Director Sevald commented with Development Reviews, Staff has some leeway to interpret what is and is not consistent with the approved plans. In this case, how things look on paper and how they look in person are entirely different; thus, Staff is requesting guidance from the Planning Commission. He reviewed the proposed location for the fence, noting it would run through the proof of parking area and requested feedback from the Commission on how to proceed. Commissioner Nelson asked what the original plan was for the fence. Community Development Director Sevald reported the fence was to be a six-foot cedar fence.