09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 • Commissioner Hegland stated, however, that Ms. Olsen was under the impression that it was to be a continuous fence. Ms. Olsen stated that everyone was. Commissioner Hegland suggested they request the City Attorney to review the matter, and provide a ruling, as he had approved the Planned Unit Development document. Chairperson Peterson stated the City Attorney's determination would be more legally convincing than the Planning Commission's interpretation of the document, unless there was further description contained within the text of the Planned Unit Development document. Jopke stated this matter was unclear, and this was the reason staff brought it to the attention of the Planning Commission, and desired a determination from the City Council. He stated the issue is in regard to the type of buffer desired by the community and neighborhood for screening in this area. He stated the developer has come forward and stated they had a proposal for consideration, and was attempting to work with the neighborhood to do what was right. He stated the Planning Commission and City Council should determine what the expectations were, and what is the best development that could occur. He stated in his opinion, and based upon the documents, the developer could construct the fence between the buildings and meet the requirements set forth at the time the City Council approved the plan. Jopke stated another issue is that the City Ordinance was deficient in defining the process of amending Planned Unit Developments. He stated, as Ms. Olsen communicated, it was important to better define this procedure for future Planned Unit Developments that will come forward. He stated he would further suggest the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that staff be directed to prepare some ordinance revisions for future consideration to deal with this issue. He stated, as the ordinance is presently written, it was difficult to interpret from staff's perspective. He stated the Planning Commission could suggest to the City Council that the neighborhood be invited to the Council Meetings to provide their input. Commissioner Hegland stated the developer was obviously of the opinion that they were to provide a continuous fence, and the plan does not show a continuous fence. He stated they should determine why this discrepancy had occurred. He stated staff should research the matter to determine if there was anything in writing or otherwise which indicated this, and if not, the developer should not have to require further approval. IIe statcd he did not think the matter required to be reopened. He stated, if the residents wished to discuss the matter with the Council, that would be fine, however, from a Commissioner's standpoint, unless there is some indication in the minutes that the requirement of a continuous fence exists, he did not see why they should do anything. He stated it appears the matter has already been approved. Commissioner Laube stated he believed this matter required the review of the City Attorney, and further research by staff. He stated that a public hearing should be announced, to provide citizen input, in an unbiased forum. He stated there were mixed feelings and the issues were unclear, and the Planning Commission did not have the ability to make those decisions. He stated the Planning Commission could hold the public hearing, or it could be held at the City Council level. He stated, however, he believed, in light of Anthony Properties' desire to work with the citizens, the citizens should be given the opportunity to provide their input.