My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-27-85 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
03-27-85 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2014 2:45:56 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:50:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
MINUTIS <br />C~ity Counci.l. <br />Marci~ 27, 1985 <br />Ord. No. The Attorney poi.nted out that gar~~e i.s cleEi.ned i.n the ordinance. A tucl<- <br />75l under garaae that i.s converred would be an accessory use. Also, a <br />(Cont.) detached yarage coould need a conditi.onal use permi.t because of the <br />squar.e footage l.imi.tation i.n the ordi.nance. <br />?4r. T~lesener Ee1t that any i.ni.tial garap,e shoulct not need a cond.itional <br />use per.mit. <br />Mrs. Nardi.ni inCroctuced Che followin~ ordinance and moved :i.ts adopti.on: <br />ORDINANCE N0. 251 - AMFNDING SECTION 903<020 <br />OF TI~tE LIT'PI,E; CANADA ZONING CODT' OI~' 'LHE LITTL~ <br />CANADA MUNICIPAL CODP I;F..LA'LING TO "ACCEiSORY <br />BUILDING" [JI'LII TI~IE ADDITION OP TiIE POLLOidING <br />AEP'ORE T1IIi LAST SPNTL;NCL IN I'f.~M 5: F.XC(:PT <br />FOR TH~ CONST°IJCi'ION OP 'CfU? PIRST DETACH1iD <br />PRIVATE GARAGI; <br />The f.oregoi.nQ ordi.nance was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Nardi.ni, Scalze, Fahey, F~lesener, Co7.lova. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Or.dinance declared actoptec.l. <br />Mounds Vi.ew The Ci.ty Attorney reported that the Mayor of Mounds View has requesCed <br />CourC Case Littt.e Canada support i.n an amicus brief because of the outcome of a <br />On Rezoni.ng court case i.n whi.ch Motmds View retused to rezone an R-1 piece of <br /> property. <br />Ap,enda <br />Item No. 15 Mr. Pai~Py explai.ned that. the City was Calcen eo court by the developer <br /> because a resident was operati.ng a home occupati.on from his R-1 <br /> property which was located in the mi.ddle of a comrner.cial d:istr9.ct. <br /> The City refused to rezone the R-1 property. <br />The Court ruled thaC the Oity has no basi.s to deny thc rezonin,~,. <br />Therefor.e, D7ounds V~.ew orouLd J.ike Ci.ty ~supnore i.n the forin of an <br />amicus bri.ef. <br />P4r. Fahey stated that he Feels that any ti.me Che authority of. a City <br />Council i.s eroded to decline a rezoning, the CiCy should be concerned. <br />Pahey fe1.t that the Ci.ty shoul.d parti.cipate :i.n the bri.ef i.f: there are <br />a few other ci.ties that, parti.ci.pate as wel.l.. <br />Mrs. Scal.zs asiced hoea much ehi.s would cost the Ci.ty. <br />7'he Planner commented that from what he remembers abouC the case, <br />the property i.nvol.ved was about 1/2 acre, The Ci.Cy's Comprehensi_ve <br />Ptan call.ed f.or this property to be R-1 anci the Counci.l decided to <br />go along wi.th i.ts Comprehensi.ve Plan. <br />Pap,e -14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.