Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 23 <br />• suggested the Council stipulate that the matter be reevaluated at such time as the situation <br />changes. <br />Council Member Stigney indicated the necessity for proceeding with this matter has been <br />documented to be the result of problems with a neighboring property. He advised that there are <br />currently no administrative penalties for all of the Police calls that have been made to this <br />property. He indicated that in attempts to resolve the issue through the courts, it might not be <br />viewed as a significant problem, in light of all of the other very serious crimes that occur. He <br />advised that Mounds View should establish some form of administrative policy as a penalty <br />action for repeated calls to the same location for the purpose of dealing with the same types of <br />problems. He explained that this would assist to address such problems in the future, in terms of <br />generating administrative penalties for repeated calls.. <br />Mayor Coughlin stated this was a good point, and although not necessarily germane to the <br />motion, it would be in order to request the consent of the Council to direct staff to research this, <br />after the Council deals with the motion on the Floor. <br />Council Member Quick requested City Attorney Long advise regarding this matter. <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 />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 />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 />Council Member Thomason moved the question. <br />Aye - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. <br />Council Member Quick requested the motion be restated. <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 />