Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />January 14, 1981 <br />Fahey stated that the City must be consistent on the subject of variances. <br />Under a PUD agreement the lot sizes could be negotiated. Fahey suggested <br />that the whole area east of Ruth Street from County Road C to Demont be <br />considered for PUD zoning. <br />Mayor Hanson stated that if the Council initiates the action, the <br />proposal must pass by a 4/5th's vote. If a citizen initiates the action, <br />the proposal only has to pass by a 3/5th's vote. <br />The Planner stated that a PUD znning is usually not granted until a <br />plan for the property has been submitted. The Planner stated that if <br />you are granting PUD zoning on the North section of the property in <br />question, the zoning will be granted on nothing. There is no plan for <br />this property. The Planner suggested that the upper portion of the <br />property be considered for R-2 zoning. <br />Mr. Fahey asked Mr. Waite if he received any less value for the property <br />because of the loss of some trees on the property. Mr. Waite stated that <br />the property is of less value because of this. <br />The Planner also stated that before granting building permits in this <br />area, the lots should be combined together. <br />Fahey and Scalze both stated that they were not in favor of granting <br />any variances, but would like to see the property rezoned PUD. <br />The Attorney stated that the Council has no authority to grant a variance <br />unless there is a hardship. <br />Mayor Hanson stated that under the property's present zoning Mr. Waite <br />could construct an apartment building. The City Clerk pointed out that <br />the City Council must approve an apartment plan. <br />Mr. Waite stated that he was willing to go with PUD zoning in order to <br />construct five units on the property. <br />The Mayor pointed out that if at a PUD hearing the Council received too <br />much opposition to the proposal, the Council will not go along with it. <br />Hanson also reminded Mr. Waite that there could be park charges under <br />a PUQ. <br />The P7anner stated that Mr. Waite could get more units on the property <br />as it is presently zoned than what he is proposing. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 81-1-34 - CALLING FOR A PUD HEARING FOR THE <br />CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE 4-PLEXES AND TWO <br />DUPLEXES AND CALLING fOR A HEARING ON THE VACATION OF LAKE <br />STREET EAST OF Rl1TH STREET TO JFlCKSON STREET FOR FEQRUARY 11, <br />1981 <br />Page -9- <br />