Minutes - Council - 09/02/2008 - Special

Home

He stated that he feels this violates a number of constitutional provisions, but because of time, will not go into those in great detail. He stated that he would point out a bias in the Findings of Fact. He stated Findings of Fact 1 states that he is an owner of record of the property located at 6203 Rivlyn Avenue NW, Ramsey, MN. He stated that this is not supported by evidence and things that are similar are not the same and gave an example of a City versus a Town. He stated that there was no proof offered that he was the property owner or that he owns the vehicle. He stated that he feels there were a lot of procedural errors. Councilmember Elvig asked if Mr. Kiefer's position was that he did not own the property or the vehicle. Mr. Kiefer stated that this is correct and records show that he is not the owner of the vehicle and there was never any evidence offered for who was or wasn't the owner of the vehicle or any conclusive evidence of who owned the property. Councilmember Dehen stated that he read through the transcript of the hearing and it is his understanding that Mr. Kiefer has a verbal agreement with his wife, children and relatives that they own the property. Mr. Kiefer stated that years ago, he transferred ownership of the property to his wife. Councilmember Dehen asked if there was a written agreement to that affect or only verbal. Mr. Kiefer stated that it is a verbal agreement. He noted that he was not on the witness list and feels this is another procedural error made because he had asked for a copy of the witness list. He stated that he feels this testimony should be stricken from the record because of this. He stated that the comprehensive plan shows the property as zoned R-3, but because of certain bias, he was not allowed to submit that into testimony. He stated that Witness #1 testified that on November 27,2007, a large, white panel van was parked on the property illegally. He stated that if you go back to the original report, it was dated December 18, 2007, so he feels that this shows that either a false police report was filed or perjury occurred. He stated that in that notice, it claimed that a particular van was parked in the rear of the property and that the corrective action was that the van had to be parked on a driveway or an impervious surface. He stated that van was parked on a driveway that was well established back to 1972 and he has aerial photos to that affect which he tried to submit, but the Hearing Examiner denied that. He stated that at the hearing the testimony stated that the van was-parked in the front and not parked on the driveway. He stated that the law is very specific and certain things need to be proven and if they aren't, then the case is not proven. He stated that City Code section 9.11 does not state that the driveway needs to be an impervious surface. He stated that the general section states that off driveway parking must be impervious, but not that a driveway must be impervious. He stated that this property is not inconsistent with other properties that don't have impervious driveways. City Attorney Goodrich stated that this information was not admitted into testimony and noted that what is happening on somebody else's property is not relevant to the discussion tonight regarding the property at 6203 Rivlyn Avenue NW. Special City Council Meeting / September 2, 2008 Page 3 of9