Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 22 <br />• and that furthermore, the City Administrator and the Mayor be allowed to enter into the final <br />execution of this document, in order to move forward in this process, with regard to building <br />permits and items of this nature, and allow for the fence without delay. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Thomason. The Council Finds that based upon the Standards <br />Testified to at the Council Work Session, in conjunction with the Staff Reports and the Police <br />Reports Involved in this Matter, this Situation Rises to the Level Required for a Variance, <br />Furthermore, the City Administrator and the Mayor be Allowed to Enter into the Final Execution <br />of this Document, and to Execute all Necessary Documents Pertaining to Building Permits and <br />Items of this Nature, In Order to Move Forward in this Process and Allow for the Fence without <br />Delay, and Based Upon the Facts and the Presentation, the Council Finds That a Hardship Exists, <br />and Based Upon Those Findings, the Council would Grant the Appeal, and Furthermore, the <br />Homeowner Shall Act in Good Faith Upon the Measure Passed, and that Staff be Directed to <br />Prepare a Resolution in this Regard. <br />Council Member Marty indicated that during the previous Work Session discussion, the <br />possibility of having the Police Chief address the situation in a different manner had come <br />forward. He inquired if it would be possible to allow the fence as a temporary structure, and to <br />incorporate some rapidly growing shrubs as a more permanent means to resolve this situation. <br />Mayor Coughlin advised that due to the relative permanence of a fence, it should probably be <br />viewed as a permanent entity. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He advised that the request before the <br />Council was not the consideration of an interim use permit or and conditional use permit, but <br />rather, the granting of the variance to allow for the fence. He explained that at some point in the <br />future, staff would likely come back before the Council with an ordinance that would allow for a <br />different forms of redress for property owners through the conditional or interim use permit, <br />however, that is not the case at this point, due to the timing of this matter. <br />Council Member Marty inquired what would occur if one or both of these property owners were <br />to move in the future, and the 8-foot fence was still present. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the property owner might desire to remove the fence. Council <br />Member Quick advised that the fence would be the property of the owner of the property upon <br />which it is located, and it would be up to that individual to determine what to do with the fence. <br />Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Code requires that fences be constructed no closer than one-foot <br />from the property line. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Code simply indicates that a fence <br />may not be constructed upon the property line. <br />Council Member Stigney stated this property owner has certainly demonstrated her need for <br />privacy, and it is evident that she has experienced some problems. He stated he would be <br />• pleased to grant her request for a fence, at least on an interim basis. He explained that if the <br />fence were permitted because of the specific conditions that exists, and those conditions should <br />cease, he would not see a need for maintaining that type of deviation from the Code. He <br />