Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 26~ 1997 <br />RESOLUTION NO. 97-2-49 - RATIFYING THE DEVELOPER <br />SELECTION PROCESS AS OUTLINED IN THE FEBRUARY 25, 1997 <br />LETTER SUBMITTED BY EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (4) Morelan, LaValle, Scalze, Pedersen. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />AIR The City Administrator asked the Council's position on <br />CONDITIONING air conditioning equipment in the required side yard <br />EQUIPMENT setback. The Building Official's recommendation is <br />that this portion of the ordinance be deleted so that <br />air conditioning equipment could be placed in the <br />required side yard. It was noted that there are <br />currently many violations that exist. <br />Council's consensus was to delete this provision, and <br />instructed the City Planner to include this in his <br />redraft of the shed ordinance. <br />SURFACE The Administrative Assistant reported that Council's <br />WATER action in revising Chapter 1301 of the City Code <br />REGULATIONS relating to surface water regulations for Lake Gervais <br />resulted in the deletion of these regulations for other <br />bodies of water in the City. While State Statutes <br />already regulate surface water, the Administrative <br />Assistant noted that the City's no wake zone for all <br />bodies of water had been 300 feet. State Statutes <br />provide for a 100 foot no wake zone. <br />Given the size of the bodies of water in the City other <br />than Lake Gervais, the Council was comfortable with a <br />100 foot no wake zone for these lakes. <br />2944 CONDIT The City Administrator reported that the appraised <br />STREET value for 2944 Condit was $112,000 and the property <br />owner's asking price was $97,000. The policy being <br />used has been to split the difference between the <br />asking price and the appraised value. Initially the <br />property owner at 2944 Condit Street agreed to that <br />policy. However, the property owner is now asking that <br />the City pay closer to the full appraised value. The <br />rational is that replacement housing cannot be found at <br />the price initially agreed upon. The Administrator <br />reported that he pointed out to the property owner that <br />had the sale gone through a realtor, he would not get <br />the full appraised value given the need to pay <br />realtor's fees. <br />17 <br />