My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2000/05/22
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
Agenda Packets - 2000/05/22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:02 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 2:07:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/22/2000
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
5/22/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 23 <br /> <br />City Attorney Long advised that with regard to the first portion of Council Member Stigney’s <br />statement, a time restriction could not be placed on a variance, and it runs with the land. He <br />indicated that if a variance were granted at this time, this would be the case, however, if the <br />current or future property owner decided they did not desire the fence, they could remove it. He <br />advised that a time restriction could be attached to an interim use, however, conditional use <br />permits and variances were not subject to specific time frames. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick stated there were previous discussions in Council Chambers regarding <br />fire and burglar alarm calls, and consideration of imposing a surcharge for calls in excess of a <br />specific number. He indicated at that time, it had come forward that this had been determined to <br />be unconstitutional. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long stated the City could charge for some calls. Council Member Quick <br />indicated he was referring to penalties for excessive calls, which, in his understanding, rests with <br />the courts. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomason moved the question. <br /> <br /> Aye – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick requested the motion be restated. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin stated the findings are that this particular situation rises to level that allows for <br />the granting of a variance. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long advised that the motion should also indicate that based upon the facts and the <br />presentation, the Council finds that there is a hardship involved and that based upon those <br />findings, the Council would grant the appeal. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin stated furthermore, the motion would allow for the homeowner in question to <br />act in good faith upon the measure that would be passed, and allow the Mayor and the City <br />Administrator execute all necessary documents. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long added that the motion should indicate that the Council would direct staff to <br />prepare a resolution. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick stated it has been his experience that when the issues become <br />complicated, they should be restated to provide clarification. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin inquired if Council Member Stigney would like to ask consent of the Council to <br />direct staff to explore administrative fees and fines. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney stated he would. He added that a resident had brought to his attention <br />the possibility that the city of St. Paul had such an ordinance in effect. He indicated staff might <br />wish to contact the city of St. Paul to determine their policy in this regard.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.