My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2000/05/08
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
Agenda Packets - 2000/05/08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:51 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 2:14:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/8/2000
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
5/8/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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
Item No: 10 D <br />Meeting Date: May 8, 2000 <br />Type of Business: WK <br />WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; <br />CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To: Honorable Mayor & City Council <br />From: James Ericson, Planner <br />Item Title/Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Ordinance 658, an <br />Emergency Ordinance Allowing for the Installation <br />of Eight-foot Tall Fences in Front Yards under <br />Certain Circumstances. <br />Date of Report: May 4, 2000 <br /> <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />This emergency ordinance is before the Council in response to a matter that was <br />discussed at the May 1, 2000 Worksession meeting regarding the property owner of <br />8438 Groveland Road. As the Council may recall, the property owner had <br />requested a variance from the Planning Commission to install an eight-foot tall <br />fence in her front yard to protect herself and her family from the allegedly abusive <br />behavior of the adjoining property owner to the north. The Planning Commission, <br />while very sympathetic to the applicant’s situation, could find no property-based <br />hardship associated with the request and acted to deny the request. The applicant <br />then appealed that decision to the City Council. <br /> <br />At the worksession meeting, much discussion was given to the possible landscaping <br />options that may be utilized to provide for a suitable screening between the two <br />properties. The applicant had indicated that for some reason, none of her <br />landscaping was able to grow between the two properties and was thus reluctant to <br />invest significant sums into additional landscaping only to see that too fail. <br /> <br />The Council took testimony from Chief Clark regarding the ongoing police activity at <br />the neighbor’s location, substantiating the applicant’s testimony concerning the <br />incidents of harassment, loud parties, suspicious activities and the like. It was <br />noted that in the last few years, the police had been dispatched to the property <br />more than fifty times, with citations being issued and the neighbor arrested on <br />occasion. <br /> <br />The applicant, who takes great pride in the appearance of her yard and property <br />and has lived in the house for thirty years, feels the only suitable and acceptable <br />solution--short of moving--is the installation of a fence tall enough to reduce, if not <br />eliminate, all contact with the neighbor. Staff was then directed to research all of <br />the possible solutions and to present its findings at a future Council meeting. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.