My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000042_pg281
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000042
>
gr00090_000042_pg281
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 4:59:32 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 10:12:56 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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
September 27, 1976 Page 13 <br />dropped completely and consequently loose the momentum by waiting for more <br />information. He suggested this be tabled until the first meeting in November. <br />If this goes too far into the fall we lose the capability of installing them. <br />Mayor Pickar stated the Council probably has more questions now than after <br />the first meeting concerning tie downs. <br />MSP ( Pickar- Shelquist) that this matter of amending Chapter 43 of <br />Ordinance No. 253 entitled Mobile Homes be placed on the November 8 <br />council agenda <br />Councilmember Baumgartner stated that the State will probably not have their <br />recommendations available by the November 8 meeting. It may go on until <br />January or March. Mayor Pickar stated that setting this item for November 8 <br />does not mean it will be settled but we should have more information on it. <br />Attorney Meyers suggested that someone from the State be invited to this <br />meeting. 5 ayes <br />The meeting was then recessed for ten minutes and reconvened at 11:20 p.m. <br />REVIEW CHAPTER 40.03 SUBDIVISION 4 (4) ENTITLED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN <br />RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. <br />Mayor Pickar stated that at the last Council meeting when this was discussed <br />it was sent back to the Planning Commission to find out their feelings. <br />Four of the Commissioners want it to stay with the 145 square feet, two <br />want 216 square feet and two want to delete the special use provision and <br />make it a variance. It does not appear that the majority want it changed. <br />Councilmember Hodges stated he would like to see the buildings larger so <br />that boats and such could be inside, but since there were four Commissioners <br />that wanted to leave it at 145 sq. ft. he would go along with leaving the <br />ordinance as is and discussing each case. <br />Councilmember Baumgartner stated that 145 sq. ft. is about 12'x12' and if <br />you drive around you will see boats and other equipment sitting outside. <br />He feels the Council should increase the size to 216 square feet and have <br />anything over 216 sq. ft. require a special use permit. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated that a 12'x12' building is too small and would <br />favor the 216 square foot building which would be 12'x18'. A special use <br />permit should be required for anything larger. <br />Councilmember Shelquist stated he was surprised at the Planning Commissions' <br />reaction because he thought they would want the increase. Part of their <br />discussion was on the assumption that Council had already decided on the 216 sq. <br />ft. He feels that 145 sq. ft. is an adequate building and if the Council <br />raises it, it will open the door to more raises. Councilmember Shelquist <br />reviewed the Peterson and Lestina requests and stated he would like to leave <br />it at 145 sq. ft. and hear other requests as a special use permit. This <br />would prevent these buildings from becoming garages and industries in <br />residential areas, which is a concern of his. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.