Laserfiche WebLink
Page 7 <br /> May 13, 1996 <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> Business in this city is not being done in the interest of the residents. If it were there would be a consistent <br /> openness in city government. All decisions would be made in public and with many opportunities for the <br /> public to try to influence the debate and decisions. The action taken by Mayor Linke and council members <br /> Trude and Blanchard on May 6 is a violation of trust and it adds fuel to the cynicism and apathy that <br /> already exists in the hearts and souls of voters. <br /> Having said all of this, the course we must take now is to give the staff the support they need to make the <br /> best of this situation. They need time to plan very carefully and to develop a project that will work to the <br /> extent possible. And, our role as a council ought to be one of having only public meetings on this issue and <br /> to collectively engage in problem solving strategies cooperatively with the staff. Building consensus with <br /> public input is what is needed" <br /> Ms.Trude explained that it was the Economic Development Commission that authorized the purchase of <br /> the property. There were no requirements for a public hearing,but there was a request for one by Council <br /> member Hankner. <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS: <br /> There were no public hearings scheduled for this meeting. <br /> COUNCIL BUSINESS: <br /> A. Consideration of Resolution No.4952,Resolutions Regarding a Variance Request for Tom Manke <br /> and Leon Theis,Owners of Mounds View Fina,2280 West County Road I. <br /> Ms. Joyce Pruitt,Acting Community Development Director,gave a brief description of the variance <br /> request. She explained that Leon Theis and Tom Manke, owners of the Mounds View Fina,had requested <br /> a variance from the Planning Commission to allow the placement of a 24'X 44'canopy atop a gas pump <br /> island at their station. They requested a variance for a 24'encroachment into the required thirty foot <br /> setback. She explained that the request was denied by the Planning Commission as they felt it would be <br /> granting the applicant a special privilege that is denied to other property owners in the same or similar <br /> zones. <br /> Mayor Linke noted that the Planning Commission did feel the canopy would be a benefit to the property, <br /> however they could not approve the variance and felt there were alternatives that could be examined for the <br /> site. He felt a 24 foot variance for a 30 foot setback requirement was rather extreme. <br /> Mr. Manke stated that he plans to update the site whether or not the variance is granted. All they are <br /> asking for is a canopy to upgrade it to the 90's,to give security to the customers and to provide weather <br /> protection for them. He would be willing to move it back and down towards Adam Street if it would help <br /> on the variance issue. <br /> A discussion followed as to whether or not a canopy would be considered a new structure(thus an <br /> enlargement of a non-conforming use). Ms. Trude stated if the variance were to be granted,perhaps the <br />