My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 1991/04/08
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
Minutes - 1991/04/08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2025 3:56:59 PM
Creation date
2/26/2025 2:51:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
4/8/1991
Description
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
unds View City Council <br />~gular Meeting <br />Page Three <br />April 8, 1991 <br />Motion failed due to lack of a second. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Quick to approve Resolution No. 4067 <br />Approving the Request by John Engberg for a Conditional Use <br />Permit to Allow an Oversized Building on His Property at <br />3030 County Road J <br />Councilmember Rickaby explained her reasoning for denial <br />of this resolution. Councilmember Rickaby states that if <br />the City approves this Conditional Use Permit it will <br />set a precedent to our code by renaming certain structurs and still <br />being able to put up another garage. Councilmember Rickaby stated <br />that she felt putting up a wall did not make one portion <br />a porch and one portion an accessory building. Councilmember <br />Rickaby felt that the garage door should be removed and windows <br />or screens added to the portion called porch in order for her <br />to approve the Conditional Use Permit. <br />Mayor Linke asked Councilmember Rickaby if she would like to <br />amend the previous motion to include that the garage door be <br />removed and windows be added. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Rickaby/Blanchard to amend original motion by <br />adding that the garage door be removed and windows or screens <br />added to the portion of the accessory building called a porch. <br />1 aye 4 nays MOTION FAILED <br />City Attorney Barney stated there are no requirements that <br />order the garage door be taken off. The tracks and hardware <br />could be taken off making the door non-operable but the City <br />has no authorization to require the door be taken off. <br />Councilmember Rickaby stated that anything reasonable then <br />could be called a porch. <br />City Attorney Karney again stated that the City would be <br />liable for a lawsuit because the City has no authorization <br />to require the door be taken off. <br />Councilmember Wuori states there is a list of contingencies <br />that must be followed. The concrete apron cannot be within <br />five feet of the accessory building, no cars can be stored <br />in the building unless they are collector vehicles as cars <br />cannot be stored in a porch. <br />Planning Technician Harrington stated that the City cannot <br />control what homeowners decide to call their own structures. <br />• If a homeowner wants to call it a porch that is up to him <br />but essentially what it is is a cold storage portion of his <br />home. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.