Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 22, 1995 <br />approve variances under both ordinances. <br />Mr. Fahey restated the following resolution and moved <br />its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 95-3-88 - TABLING ACTION ON THE <br />SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A <br />RECOMMENDATION IS OBTAINED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />ON TAE ISSUE OF NUMBER OF VOTES FOR VARIANCES TO BOTH <br />THE ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Morelan. <br />Ayes (2) Fahey, Morelan. <br />Nays (3) Scalze, Pedersen, LaValle. <br />Resolution denied. <br />Morelan stated that he felt in past practice the City <br />Council looked at all variances as a four vote issue. <br />Morelan pointed out that variances have a great impact <br />on surrounding properties, and that they should be <br />approved only for good, solid, legitimate reasons. <br />Therefore, Morelan felt that a weighted majority should <br />be required for all variance approvals. <br />Scalze felt that the Council could get into this <br />discussion at the time it considers changing the Code. <br />Fahey stated that he is persuaded by what other cities <br />are doing. Fahey also stated that he did not want to <br />see the Subdivision Code changed for the purpose of <br />furthering a specific interest in the Morelan/Tima <br />issue. Fahey felt that if a simple majority was O.K. <br />for approving variances to the Subdivision Code, it <br />should be O.K. for variances to the Zoning Code. Fahey <br />stated that he would be more concerned if the proposal <br />was to change the standards by which variance requests <br />are judged. <br />Pedersen felt that the issue tonight was a housekeeping <br />matter to clear up the inconsistency in the Subdivision <br />Code. <br />Morelan pointed out that if Scalze's motion passes, <br />then only three votes of the Council will be necessary <br />to pass a variance to the Subdivision Code. Fahey <br />replied that was correct. <br />Pedersen pointed out that paragraph M already makes <br />17 <br />