Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Stigney commented that he feels the City could contract out this position and base <br />the pay on a percentage of the building permits rather than hiring a full time employee and paying <br />benefits for that employee. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 3 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty asked that Resolution 5676 be read. <br /> <br />Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated this Resolution had come before Council because <br />staff had received comments from employees indicating it would be nice to treat the New Year’s <br />holiday the same as Christmas Eve. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty read the part of the Resolution that requires that employees must use flex <br />time, vacation time, compensatory time or unpaid leave for four (4) hours. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7N as Presented. <br /> <br />Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br /> <br />8. COUNCIL BUSINESS <br /> <br />A. Public Hearing and Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission <br />Denial of a Variance Requested by Harstad Companies Regarding the <br />Proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision, Planning Case VR01-010. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Harstad was before Council to <br />request an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of his request to vary from the minimum <br />lot width requirements of Chapter 1010 governing the wetlands. He then noted that he had <br />noticed residents within 350 feet and others known to be interested in the project. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that in order to be granted a variance there is a set of criteria that must <br />be met. He then indicated that, in this situation, the Planning Commission felt there was no <br />hardship and no justification to warrant approving the variance. He further indicated that, in his <br />staff report, he had included Staff’s interpretation of the criteria and how those could be met. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that Staff had provided two Resolutions for consideration, one <br />upholding the Planning Commission denial and another overturning the Planning Commission’s <br />decision and granting the variance. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that letters expressing opposition to the requested variance received <br />from residents were placed in Council boxes earlier today. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that it was Staff’s recommendation that, potentially, there are grounds <br />for approving a variance but noted the property is covered more than 50% by wetlands. He then