My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2001/08/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
Minutes - 2001/08/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2025 2:21:36 PM
Creation date
2/27/2025 2:21:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
8/13/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 August 13, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br />having the shed where it is. In the Planning Commission's denial, they recommended to the <br />Council that this be denied. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated the Council needs to make findings to establish the hardship. <br />Council Member Thomas asked if hardship guidelines are established. Director of Community <br />Development Ericson stated he could not think of any. <br />Council Member Quick pointed out that oversized garages fall under conditional use permits. <br />David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he has watched this type of case before and <br />understands the hardships. He said he has heard people say the Council can overturn decisions. <br />He has seen variances given for oversized garages. He gave his opinion that he thought this <br />request should be approved. <br />Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5583, A <br />Resolution Denying a Variance Request. <br />Council Member Marty suggested that if this building was there five to ten years, and a new <br />. owner moved in and didn't want the building, it could be destroyed in moving it four feet. If this <br />request is approved, and new owners moved in, the shed would be considered grandfathered in <br />and the new owners would not have a choice. <br />Council Member Quick stated he could not see the benefit in challenging the Planning <br />Commission. He said he has a shed and it is five feet from the property line. He didn't see why <br />Mr. Baumhoefner couldn't follow the guidelines as other residents do. There is no reason such <br />as a 100-year old oak tree or situations created by subdivisions that this shed would be in the way <br />and did not find reason to grant the request. <br />Council Member Thomas stated she was conflicted. She said she is "a letter of the law" type of <br />person in that when there is a list of criteria, she feels it should be followed. She said she is <br />never in favor of overturning a unanimous decision of our Planning Commission. She continued <br />that on the other hand, this is a neighborhood and the neighbors should have a say in what is <br />going on around them. She stated there is nothing that can be done now, though a policy should <br />be effected stating neighbors could have an influence. <br />Council Member Quick said that if people wanted a say in what happens in their neighborhood, <br />they have the right to run for office. He felt this was an isolated case since there are not a lot of <br />people with this type of situation. He stated that Mr. Baumhoefner was aware of the rules and <br />since he is licensed in several trades, he knows the code should be followed. <br />• Council Member Stigney expressed his view that the City Attorney demonstrated the Council <br />does not have the option to approve the appeal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.