HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.o. Receive Letter of Appeal and Set Public HearingCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date: December 18, 2001
AGENDA ITEM: Receive Letter of Appeal and set public hearing
AGENDA SECTION:
Add -on Consent
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Bernard Luken
APPROVED BY:
SUMMARY
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments on December 11, 2001 denied Mr. Luken's variance petition. He has
exercised his right to appeal with the attached letter. A public hearing is required to hear the appeal. Staff
suggests that the public hearing be scheduled for January 15, 2002. The next available meeting would be
February 5, 2002,
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to receive the letter of appeal from Mr. Bernard Luken and schedule a public hearing for January 15,
2002.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Bernard Luken
12807 Dover Drive
Apple Valley, MN
55124
City of Rosemount
City Council Members
Dear Council Members:
I am the current owner of the property at 3270 McAndrews Road, a parcel
with an infamous history, I am discovering, having been the focus of attention by
City staff, neighboring residents, and the police prior to my assuming ownership
in July of 1999.
I am also discovering that there are significant and in my opinion, onerous,
restrictions on what I am permitted to do on my property and with the buildings
thereon. Of course, mere ignorance of these restrictions does not warrant any
type of favorable consideration, but the cumulative impact of City ordinances,
building codes, and neighborhood covenants is basically precluding any planned
improvements to the buildings short of complete demolition.
am therefore appealing the decision of December 11 by the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments denying the request for a variance from the stipulated
1,200 sq. ft. maximum total allowable area for accessory buildings within the
Rural Residential Zoning District. The negative response was justified according
to the exact letter of the ordinance, but I believe the unique circumstances
involving this property also justify a review of that decision. I am also seeking
review, clarification, and /or adjustment to the City rule limiting the value of
improvements to structures such as the old barn on my property, which I am
trying to preserve.
Please carefully consider the plans developed for the proposed project
and the arguments and illustrations presented in a separate document, "Luken
Property/ Variance Application Support Materials." I hope that it will become
apparent that an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is justified and
reasonable.
Sincerely,
" I Z, v
Bernard Luken