My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000042_pg277
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000042
>
gr00090_000042_pg277
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 4:58:57 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 10:12:40 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
September 27, 1976 Page 9 <br />Councilmember Shelquist suggested that since Mr. Bauer has not gone over <br />the development contract, and keeping in mind his desire to get started <br />in a hurry, this matter be tabled until later tonight so he can look it <br />over. <br />MSP (Shelquist - Baumgartner) to table this matter until later in the <br />evening when Mr. Bauer has had a chance to look at the development contract. 5 ayes <br />STEVE'S APPLIANCES PROPOSED ADDITION TO COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT, <br />2841 HIGHWAY #10. <br />MS (Shelquist- Baumgartner) that this matter be sent to the Planning <br />Commission since it has only been presented to them orally and as a non- <br />fee item. <br />Councilmember Shelquist explained that at the September 8 Planning Commission <br />meeting, the applicant came in with plans without application being taken <br />out, for review by the Commission. The Commission referred them to the <br />staff. The request on September 8 was to get approval for an addition, <br />which was not possible. Also, the matter was not presented to the Planning <br />Coiiuuission on September 22 as it should have been so there is no recommenda- <br />tion from the Planning Commission. <br />Bruce Dahlmeier, of Dahlmeier Construction, stated that they were routed <br />by the staff to this council meeting. Mr, Rose explained that this <br />matter came before the Planning Commission and then the applicants came <br />to him about a week later with plans. The applicants stated they had been <br />before the Planning Commission and the next step was the Council's approval. <br />In checking the minutes Mr. Rose had nothing to go on. Administrator Achen <br />suggested that since they were in a hurry, it be placed on the Council <br />agenda. <br />Steve Singer, the applicant, stated that he would have been at the <br />September 22 meeting if he had known about it. Councilmember Shelquist <br />stated that the Planning Commission took no action because it was not on <br />the agenda and there was no fee. <br />Councilmember Hodges stated that this does not seem like that big of a <br />problem, but our procedure is to go through the Planning Commission and <br />this matter should go to them first. <br />Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he did not understand what the <br />Planning Commission had to do with this if it is called a "simple <br />budding expansion ". Councilmember Shelquist stated there needs to be a <br />variance on the number of parking spaces and the Council has given away <br />the right to grant a variance. Only the Planning Commission can grant <br />a variance. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated she strongly feels the City has to have people <br />follow the procedures item by item and therefore should go before the Planning <br />Commission. She stated she sympathizes with the developers because of the <br />weather problem but this should have started with the Planning Commission. <br />Attorney Meyers stated that only the Planning Commission can handle a <br />variance and the development contract has not even been started at this <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.