My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2002/08/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
Agenda Packets - 2002/08/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:32 PM
Creation date
8/15/2018 1:05:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/12/2002
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/12/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
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 City Council July 8, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 16 <br /> <br />Ron Morgan thanked Council for the opportunity to speak and be heard. He then said the <br />association owns the property which is called common area and is owned on two deeds and that <br />is by the far majority of land. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre asked Mr. Morgan to address the specific question asked. <br /> <br />Mr. Morgan said the answer is no as he does not think it is beneficial to the community and not <br />appropriate. He then said that he thinks that is why the development was stopped as the units did <br />not sell. <br /> <br />Lee Watkins said he did not have a problem with construction on H2 but the density brought by <br />34 townhomes to the Greenwood area with two cars per family would be an issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre said traffic for the neighborhood would not be an issue with option three. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked whether the City could run into legal problems by approving <br />option three. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated the Council could approve the rezoning of the parcels requested by <br />Mr. Harstad without consent of the townhome owners. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that option three would rezone a portion of the common area/ <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated that is a different issue as the applicant did not request that portion <br />be rezoned it would be an action taken by Council at its discretion rather than by request. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that Staff recommends rezoning the parcel where the townhomes are <br />located if the City approves option three because they are a nonconforming use and rezoning to <br />R-3 would bring them into conformity. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked if there would be legal repercussions. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs said that somebody can always sue but Council has the ability to rezone that <br />property of it own volition. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked what the potential was that Mr. Morgan and his townhome <br />association would sue the City. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated he was not sure whether they would sue the City but the City does <br />have the ability to rezone any parcel in the City by its own volition and that is supported by state <br />law and City ordinance. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty indicated he was concerned that R-3 zoning would be too dense a use <br />and he would prefer to see upscale twinhomes. He then commented that he is concerned that
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.