09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 • Mr. Smith inquired if it would be possible to obtain a ruling from staff and the City Attorney to determine their standing, prior to holding a public hearing. Chairperson Peterson stated this would be a wise and prudent step for everyone's sake. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Mr. Smith obtained a ruling indicating that the continuous fence was not required, he would not consider the residents' desires. Mr. Smith stated this was not what he meant. He stated he would like to see what the ruling is, and then take the citizen's input. Commissioner Kaden noted at some point, many people got the impression that the fence was supposed to be continuous. Mr. Smith stated if they were in the right and could put the fence against the building, they would still like to move it back. He stated they wanted to be good neighbors and work with people. Chairperson Peterson stated whether the fence is moved six feet, or is removed completely in that location, he believed the citizens should have some input on the matter. Mr. Smith inquired if the matter could be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting, to allow staff and the City Attorney to conduct their research. He stated they have until November 15 to put the fence back up. Commissioner Hegland stated he would have a problem in regard to this, as the building would continue to be constructed, and if this matter might be reopened to obtain residents' input. Mr. Smith stated the question was who created the hardship. He inquired if the hardship was created before this situation, or because the building was in the wrong location. Chairperson Peterson stated • this was not a variance situation. He explained within a Planned Unit Development, there is an alternate way of handling the normal requirements, and those matters are spelled out in a legal document, which defines every occurrence. He stated the question was what to do with a fence that was supposed to be there, and upon review of the documents, appears is not required. Commissioner Hegland stated this was an assumption at this point, and the only documentation they presently have, shows the building with no fence. Chairperson Peterson stated there was an obvious recollection that there was to be a continuous fence, and the question is what commitments were made regarding that fence. He stated, it was clear in his mind, based upon the documents at hand, that the fence is not required, however, they should obtain the City Attorney's opinion on the matter. Mr. mith stated he hoped he hadn't brought to light a concern that was unnecessary. Chairperson Peterson stated he believed Mr. Smith had done the right thing. Commissioner Kaden stated he would rather see Mr. Smith be proactive, and have the matter resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved. Mr. Smith stated they were attempting to do what was right, and if it was necessary to request a variance, that was what they would do. Commissioner Stevenson suggested staff upon conducting the research, refer to the meetings during which discussion was held regarding the fence. He stated the construction of the fence was requested in lieu of the office buildings, which were not constructed at that time, as a safety precaution. He suggested research be conducted of the discussion that took place prior to the construction of the 110 office buildings.