Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 19 <br /> • <br /> Mr. Smith inquired if it would be possible to obtain aruling from staff and the City Attorney to <br /> determine their standing, prior to holding a public hearing. Chairperson Peterson stated this would <br /> be a wise and prudent step for everyone's sake. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Mr. Smith obtained <br /> a ruling indicating that the continuous fence was not required, he would not consider,the residents' <br /> desires. Mr. Smith stated this was not what he meant. He stated he would 4e to see seplOtiat the ruling <br /> is, and then take the citizen's input. Commissioner Kaden noted at some t, many people got the <br /> impression that the fence was supposed to be cont ,. <br /> inuous. Mr Smith stat t y were in the right <br /> and could put the fence against the building, they would still like to mo t k, He stated the::. <br /> wanted to be good neighbors and work withpeople. <~ k `::: ::v <br /> Chairperson Peterson stated whether the fence is moved=*�C,Aitik".feet,_}fir is removed 0,5: `completelyn that <br /> location, he believed the citizens should have some input <matter. Mr. Smith'in q rred if the <br /> matter could be tabled until the next Planning Commission n thug, to allow staff and the City <br /> Attorney to conduct their research. He stated they have until untiVISkibilat5 to put the fence back up. <br /> Commissioner Hegland stated he would have a problem in regardt <<ti ,€as the building would <br /> continue to be constructed, and if this matter might; reopened to :bt`ai'n r sidents' input. <br /> ,»ate �:..:�,;`'� ' >:, <br /> Mr. Smith stated the question was who created the hard'S p A e inquire `if the hardship was created <br /> before this situation, or because the building=was in the wro'1466:6009Chairperson Peterson stated <br /> this was not a variance situation. He Aria.explained within a P ilr etl'`�Unit Development, there is an <br /> III alternate way of handling the normal requirem ts, and those matters are spelled out in a legal <br /> document, which defines every oce :_:i e. H•.:> ted the estion was what to do with a fence that <br /> was supposed to be there, and up n review;oft e documents, appears is not required. <br /> Commissioner He land statedNit .ss. t.as an asst m "tion at this point, and the only documentation they <br /> presently... ::`: `r'sh the building with::;no fence. Chairperson Peterson stated there was an obvious <br /> recollection` t t er ;was to'N:070Afrus fence, and the question is what commitments were <br /> made regarding; (1045: He stated,<>7:t, as clear in his mind, based upon the documents at hand, <br /> that the fence _` ">` ``tii ed>r owever«'hey should obtain the CityAttorney's opinion on the matter. <br /> ��ts� p„�ectu.;:� t. y Y p <br /> Mr. SO• stated he ho•d ` ` "t broutht to light a concern that was unnecessary. Chairperson <br /> Petyrn stated he belielifilr.believed Smith had done the right thing. Commissioner Kaden stated he <br /> w i h rather see Mr. Smbe proactive, and have the matter resolved to the satisfaction of everyone <br /> in : ,Ced. Mr. Smith sta..ed they were attempting to do what was right, and if it was necessary to <br /> r: Ze <br /> _,._.. . ;t a variance that was what they would do. <br /> !OtligliN::.,,.,,A4c,:,:' <br /> :::; uenson suggested staff, upon conducting the research, refer to the meetings during <br /> w h_ ;: "''cion was held regarding the fence. He stated the construction of the fence was requested <br /> in lieu of the office buildings, which were not constructed at that time, as a safety precaution. He <br /> suggested research be conducted of the discussion that took place prior to the construction of the <br /> office buildings. <br /> 110 <br />