My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-20-1993
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
01-20-1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2018 5:24:07 AM
Creation date
7/31/2018 5:24:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
1/20/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
• Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 1993 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 3 <br /> Motion/Second: Ruggles/Stevenson to <br /> approve Resolution No. 355-92, approving <br /> the variance request of Simon T. Simon, <br /> 2840 Highway 10. <br /> Commissioner Nelson asked about the <br /> "enforceability" of the statement in the <br /> resolution which would allow the City to <br /> review the variance upon a change in use <br /> of the building. <br /> Planner Harrington stated that he had <br /> spoken with the City Attorney, who <br /> assured him that the City would have the <br /> right to review the variance when the <br /> use changes. <br /> 4 ayes 3 nays Motion Failed <br /> This motion failed due to the lack of a <br /> 2/3 affirmative majority, as required by <br /> Chapter 40 of the Municipal Code. <br /> Commissioner Peterson stated that this <br /> was a difficult situation, but he felt <br /> that he had to vote against the variance <br /> because it goes against the Comprehen- <br /> sive Plan's goal, of reducing the non- <br /> conforming uses on Highway 10. He felt <br /> that there is adequate parking for the <br /> store now, but that he didn't feel that <br /> there would be enough for the proposed <br /> use ifthe va-r--ane were granted. <br /> Commissioner Miller voted against the <br /> variance because she felt that granting <br /> a parking reduction variance of over 50% <br /> would set a bad precedent for other such <br /> situations in the City. <br /> Chair Mountin had the following reasons <br /> for voting against the variance: <br /> • A use currently exists for this <br /> property. Denial of the variance <br /> will not derive the applicant use <br /> of his property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.