03-08-95 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 1995 Tima property division has been resolved. Scalze felt that the applicant may be at a disadvantage if the Code is changed at this point. Fahey pointed out that a super majority vote would be required at this point. Scalze pointed out that the City Attorney has not made that statement. Scalze felt it would be unfair to Mr. Tima to change the Code before his issue is resolved. Fahey pointed out that not amending the Code leaves the issue unclear. The Council could claim that four votes are required for a variance from the Subdivision Code, and Mr. Tima~s attorney could claim that only three votes are required. LaValle asked how many votes would be required to approve a street right-of-way of less than 50 feet. The City Attorney replied that depending on which section is referred to, it could be either three votes or four votes. The Attorney again pointed out that two sections of the Subdivision Ordinance are in direct conflict with each other. Scalze pointed out that the Ordinance refers to the Board of Adjustment & Appeal, but does not say that a 4/5th~s vote is required. The City Attorney pointed out that the Ordinance does say that by reference to another section of the Code. Fahey felt that variances should require a 4/5th's vote pointing out that that is how the Council has historically treated the issue. Morelan agreed that past practice has been for a four vote requirement regardless of whether it was a variance to the Zoning Code or the Subdivision Code. Pedersen pointed out the long list of criteria for a variance to the Zoning Code. It appears that such criteria is looser in the Subdivision Code. The City Attorney reported that State Law sets out a standard list of requirements for variance to the Subdivision Code. By a strict reading of those 7