HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000042_pg278September 27, 1976 Page 10
time. It does not seem that everything has been agreen upon, such as the
additional parking spaces. Mr. Dahlmeier stated they would like a
variance on the number of parking spaces. Mayor Pickar stated that if
everything appeared completely in order, it could be a council decision,
but requiring a variance is different.
Councilmember Baumgartner stated there is a communications gap somewhere
which should be corrected. Councilmember Shelquist stated he felt it was
on the part of the staff.
Attorney Meyers stated that Mr. Singer must now apply for a variance so
they can be heard by the Planning Conuuission. Mr. Rose explained that
this matter came before the Council because the Planning Commission did
not recommend it back to themselves. Councilmember Shelquist stated that
they didn't recommend it back because they assumed it would be brought
back.
ROLAND MILLER PROPOSED INDOOR TENNIS COURT DEVELOPMENT 2828 HIGHWAY #10.
Councilmember Shelquist explained that this matter came up last fall or
spring and a building permit was approved. No further action has been
taken so about a month ago the administrator suggested we contact Mr.
Miller. The Administrator sent letters and got no response. The
Administrator then suggested the Council take action to rescind the
special use permit.
MS (Hodges - Shelquist) to rescind the conditional special use permit for
Roland Miller's proposed indoor tennis court development.
5 ayes
Councilmember Baumgartner asked if this would be rescinded as of now?
Councilmember Hodges stated yes. Engineer Hubbard explained that a
registered letter dated August 26 was sent and received by Mr. Miller.
Attorney Meyers stated one of the problems is that some people were
calling and wondering where the money was that they spent on memberships. 5 ayes
ORDINANCE NO. 253 AMENDING CHAPTER 43 ENTITLED MOBILE HOMES.
Attorney Meyers reviewed the proposed amendment which was prepared by the
Administrator. Mayor Pickar stated that earlier this evening the Council
was presented with a petition of 20 signatures objecting to these pro-
posed tiedowns.
Mark Haggerty stated that he is representing the three mobile homes in
Mounds View. He asked if this was in the final stages of adoption?
Attorney Meyers stated that it is prepared as a proposal and is not in
ordinance form. This matter could be tabled or continued.
Mr. Haggerty stated that there were several provisions they were concerned
about, but do not object to the intent of the Council. One of the major
concerns is that at this time the State is about to implement their own
section of codes and requirements so there may be some conflicts, especially
as to cost distribution. He has not seen anywhere else where the costs are
appropriated between the mobile home owner and the park owner. The mobile
park owner would not have an increase in value, but if the mobile home
owner installed his own ground support system he would have an increase in