09-15-1999 - 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 dement, unless there was further description contained within the text of the Planned Univ r..-vel�:�o.pment document. Jopke stated this matter was unclear, and this was the reason reascdiakff broug =ht°t 'te attention oft-ez PlanningCommission, and desired a determination from the«> it Council.liagliffelfhe issue ie MENAregard to the type of buffer desired by the community anneighborhood fortSAscreening'_: th's.(149 rea. He stated the developer has come forward and stated they d.a pr bsal for considdagiod was attempting to work with the neighborhood to do what was.right>atIe stated the Planni `>Commission and City Council should determine what the expectations were, u.nd w at is the best development that could occur. He stated in his opinion, and based upon the the,54pedrittialkdeveloper could construct the fence between the buildings and meet the requirements seCtititithe.time the City Council approved the plan. `"` "_'° Osvogio* Joke stated another issue is that the Cit :>% rdinai . ssas<-NoNgat eficient'n defining the process of amending Planned Unit Developments. Heated, as„ s Qisen conunicated, it was important to better define this procedure for future Planed Unitvelopmt ' hat will come forward. He stated he would further suggest the Planning ommission recommend to the City Council that staff be directed to prepare some ordinardelkevision§it r future; nsideration to deal with this issue. He stated, as the ordinance is presently wiitten, it w s diff,c>'tto interpret from staff s perspective. He �°` o i Council that the neighborhood be invited stated the Plaaning Commisszt��>c,��ld suggest',. :.ttx�l� y g to the Cou eetin s t ::>provide..their int 11 Commissioner He` and:;stated thqmoor was obviously of the opinion that they were to provide a continuous fence aha : e lan croloolitiOw a continuous fence. He stated they should determine why this discredit ad c urred. ' e.stated staff should research the matter to determine if there was an lnw ritgoWetrwisewhich indicated this. He stated, if there is not, the developer shouldot-have-to-r-egd%. approvalie-st-ated-he-did-not-think_the-matter-r-equir-ed-to-o- reop.ehed. He stated, if tier idents wished to discuss the matter with the Council, that would be Y however, hfrom a CotiiYussioner's standpoint, unless there is some indication in the minutest at t ; : .uirement of a coofoluous fence exists, he did not see why they should do anything. He stated .rs the matter;'..has already been approved. miuso,„ Ago. :.` 'a :;::ube stated he believed this matter required the review of the City Attorney, and �. fur '"e search 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. •