1991.11.04 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council meeting of November 4, 1991 Page _ 2. The City shall have no obligation to serve any landlocked parcels created by subdivision of the above referenced property, either by roadway or any other- means, from Isleton Ave. No. 3. In granting this driveway permit, the City has not, and does not, imply or approve or otherwise agree to any proposed road plan for future development which would exit from Grant Township onto Isleton Ave. No. 4. The entire matter of any future traffic connection to Isleton Avenue, and any location and plan of future roads, is expressly excluded from the City's issuance of this driveway permit, and is a matter which would have to be approved by the Hugo City Council in the future. 5. The City accepts the letter of October 24, 1991, signed by Bryon Schroeder/Glen Bjornson/Mike Lengyl, as a part of this driveway permit approval. All aye. Motion Carried. PERMIT REQUEST - D. SANTANNI Mr. Dan Santanni of 1019 W. Sherren St., Roseville, Minnesota has requested an opportunity to again appear before the City Council in an effort to secure a building permit to construct a 50' X 81' pole building on his property identified as the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section a•_,, T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota. On October 16, 1989, the City Council acted to issue a special use permit to allow the construction of a 50' X 54' pole building subject to ten special conditions. Mr. Santanni sought removal of the conditions, and requested that the size of the building be increased to 50' X 81' in an amended special use permit, acted on by the Council on December 4, 1989. Santanni refused to accept the special use permit asserting that condition six, which required the owners to give the City access to the site at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection, violated their constitutional rights. Mr. Santanni again appeared before the City Council on June 17, 1991, again requesting a special use permit, but deleting the provision that the property can be inspected by the City at reasonable times. Members of the Council also raised the question as to whether a special use permit would be required for requests of this nature. City Attorney Charles Johnson provided a legal opinion to the City Council on July, 1 1991, which stated in conclusion that, "an accessory use storage building in an agricultural district is an accessory building that would require a special use permit, unless a principal !wilding exists on the lot". Mr. Johnson also stated that a condition of a special use permit requiring the owner to give City representative_ -s qualified access to the lot to inspect for compliance with permit conditions should not be considered as a violation of their constitutional rights. in mid-October, various members of the City Council were given copies of a legal opinion from Mr. Santanni's attorney, Greg Caller, who provided a legal interpretation. The City staff concurs with the opinion provided by the City Attorney, and feels the perrr.it approvai authorized by the City Council on December 4, 1989, was valid and appropria::e. F.fter continued discus-iion on different interpretations of the City's ordinance regarding accessory buildings, it was the consensus of the City Council, with the exception of Councilman Miron, to concur with the opinion provided by the City Attorney. Mr. Santanni again stated that he refuses to accept any of the special conditions of the previously issued SUP. No further action was taken by the City Council.