My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES 10-01-2012
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2012
>
10-01-2012
>
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES 10-01-2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2012 8:48:22 AM
Creation date
9/28/2012 8:43:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
10/1/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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).
View images
View plain text
City Council Minutes Page 8 <br /> September 17,2012 <br /> Councilmember Gumphrey concurred with Councilmember Westgaard and stated the city <br /> was going to look at this in a rational way but that Mr.Moritz acted on his own. He stated <br /> this is a perfect example of why a five-foot setback is needed. He further stated he is <br /> disappointed in Mr.Moritz. <br /> Mr.Moritz stated he did cut a couple of trees by accident and he offered to make amends. <br /> He further stated the pictures shown by Ms.McDevitt-Kraljec weren't accurate. <br /> Council noted the civil issue is not before them today. <br /> Councilmember Motin stated Attorney Neilson basically told his client it is okay to violate <br /> city ordinance. He stated it's the wrong way to go about it by asking for forgiveness,rather <br /> than permission. He further stated there are many ways around adverse possession and it <br /> wouldn't apply in this situation. He stated he hasn't made any decision on the five-foot <br /> setback for fences. <br /> Robin Hagen, 20296 Twin Lakes Rd NW,stated setbacks most likely wouldn't have meant <br /> anything to Mr.Moritz. She stated the only reason they installed a fence was to protect their <br /> property because every time they left for work their trees would disappear. She reviewed <br /> photos of trees/branches cut into their property. She stated Mr.Moritz removed the <br /> monument marker and put his own posts out and left the monument marker sitting to the <br /> side. She stated she now has semi-trucks driving by because they put a road in right on the <br /> property line. She stated they have a 100 year old grainery they can no longer get behind to <br /> perform maintenance to it. She stated the Moritz's should have to follow the law and that it <br /> is in place for a reason. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard suggested directing staff to do more research on other <br /> communities and to bring this item back to a Council worksession. He also asked for past <br /> history on why the five-foot setback may have been chosen and requested all parties be <br /> notified in order to participate in the discussion. <br /> Councilmember Zerwas stated he is inclined to go with Option#1 (outlined in the staff <br /> report) of making no changes to the ordinance and to enforce the current ordinance as it is <br /> written. <br /> Councilmember Motin concurred but stated it also makes sense to get more information as <br /> to the purpose of the setback and what other communities are doing. He noted some sort of <br /> buffer would seem appropriate. <br /> Mayor Dietz questioned if the city changes the setback to two-feet,how it would affect Mr. <br /> Moritz. <br /> Attorney Beck stated there would be no non-conforming use rights because the fence was <br /> illegally installed <br /> Councilmember Gumphrey concurred with Councilmember Zerwas and further stated you <br /> need to account for the cows sticking their necks through the fence to eat the neighbors <br /> grass <br /> Attorney Beck asked for clarification on Council's direction. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.