HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000053_pg158MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting
PAGE 3 May 27, 1980
Forslund stated she voted NAY because she under-
stood the tax exempt financing was made available
to entice industry into the community. She does
not feel Mounds View has to be competitive in this
area.
McCarty stated he voted NAY because the balance
sheets were not audited and because, at present,
Council does not have any guidelines for approval
of these projects. He felt this should be addressed
by the Council as soon as possible since it actually
was lending the credit reputation of the city. He
also stated that this was no reflection on the
Wolf and Associates proposal.
The regular meeting closed for the public hearing.
The public hearing opened at 8:11 P.M. 7. VARIANCE APPEAL OF THOMAS J.JOHNSON
8025 RED OAK DRIVE - PUBLIC HEARING
Comments:
Tom J. Johnson, 8025 Red Oak Drive, referred
Council to a map which indicated that the third
and fourth houses north of his residence had
setbacks which would match his proposed setback.
He is appealing to Council because his proposal
is similar to those particular houses and also
because the Planning Commission (5 -5 -80) could
not agree on the actual interpretation of
Code Section 40.05 Subd. C.
Peg Mountin, 8287 Red Oak Drive, stated she did
not feel it was the Planning Commission or the
City Council's intent to create a Code which could
not be applicable to every resident. She, therefore,
asked Council for their remarks on the original
intent of the Code so the Planning Commission could
have their input.
Cindy Winum, 8028 Red Oak Drive, indicated she
lives directly across from Tom Johnson and that
she approves of his request. She also expressed
frustration with the differing interpretations of
Codes from different(previous) Councils.
Dean Krogh, 8060 Red Oak Drive and Don Swanson,
8039 Red Oak Drive, both indicated their approval
of Tom Johnson's request (neighbors of Mr. Johnson).
Sharon McCarthy,7760 Long Lake Rd.,felt that more
requests of this type would be coming in and that
the rights of the citizens to develop their property,
as well as the right of present citizens, not to
have a neighbor destroy their property values,
needed to be protected by the Council and Mayor.