04-05-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 permit for a finite period of time, however, it would not be possible to proceed through the variance process. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there would be any complaints from the neighbors, if the City took this approach, and the construction of the fence was permitted. Mrs. Brunes stated she felt like she would not have a problem in this regard. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the neighborhood was notified regarding this request. Mrs. Brunes stated this item had not yet been published in the newspaper. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not have a problem with approving this request, however, he would have concerns if it became a problem with the other neighbors. He stated he would like the City to assist in resolving this situation for the applicant, however, they are responsible for the entire City. Mrs. Brunes stated she understood. She stated she also realized that the drawing she had submitted represented a blockade type of a fence, and as she had indicated, she would be willing to accept even two sections of six-foot fence. She pointed out that screening of her step alone would assist tremendously, as she currently felt as if she were a prisoner in her own home. She stated she would bring her request before the City Council, adding that she had run for the City Council at one time. Chairperson Peterson stated the primary remedy must come through Police Department action, however, an interim use approach could be considered at the City Council level, and perhaps the City Attorney could offer some suggestions as well. Mrs. Brunes inquired regarding the possibility of building the land up three feet, and constructing a four-foot fence upon it. Commissioner Stevenson explained that a berm is more permanent than a fence, and if the problem was to cease and Justin moved away, that pile of dirt would be more difficult to remove. Commissioner Stevenson asked staff if the Commission would have to deny the request in order to explore the other options. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the Commission could not act on this matter at this time, therefore they would have to wait until the April 19 meeting to determine their course of action, at which time, it would be within their purview to table the matter as well. He explained that during this time, staff could explore the interim use permit option as suggested by Community Development Director Jopke. He indicated staff would research this with the City Attorney, to determine if this is an option, as well as any other possibilities that may come forward in the interim. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if it was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to draft a resolution for consideration at the next meeting, and during that time, to explore possible