10-24-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10.Under the Preliminary Plat, the house pad on Lot 1 is moved 20 feet to the south to save vegetation next to the adjacent property. 11. The new drain fields provided for in the Preliminary Plat are further from the lake than under the 1989 plan. All three lots in the Preliminary Plat meet the 100 foot setback to the drain fields, whereas, only one of the lots met the requirement under the 1989 plan. 12. Under the Preliminary Plat, two of the three lots meet the requirement of frontage on a public street, whereas, under the 1989 plan, only one of the lots met that requirement. 13. Under the Preliminary Plat, two of the three lots meet the 150 foot lot width at the ordinary high water mark and the third lot is 145 feet at the ordinary high water mark requiring a variance of five feet. Under the 1989 plat, two of the three lots also met the requirement, but the third lot was only 80 feet at the ordinary high water mark. 14. The proposed use of the property is residential, in keeping with the character of the area. The three lots in the Preliminary Plat will have as much or greater shoreland than homes in the surrounding area. 15. The property presents unique circumstances in that there is difficulty in creating house pads and lot lines because the property is located at the terminus of a cul -de -sac. 16 The property further presents unique circumstances in that it is characterized by a stand of trees and a grade change from 896 feet to 856 feet, representing a grade change of 44 feet. Meanwhile, on May 20, 1999, appellants had filed a complaint against the city seeking declaratory judgment that the revised preliminary plat approval vote failed because of a disqualifying conflict of interest. On August 11, 1999, appellants filed an amended complaint seeking further declaratory judgment that variances granted by the city were invalid because there was no showing of undue hardship as required by ordinance and statute, and because the council acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The amended complaint also named the Perkins as defendants and sought injunctive relief barring development of the property. After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment, finding there were no material fact issues and concluding that the city's determination that variance criteria were met was not arbitrary and capricious and that there was no disqualifying conflict of interest. Judgement was entered and this appeal followed. ISSUES Did a city council member have a disqualifying conflict of interest in the city's preliminary plat Was the city's variance approval in violation of governing statute and ordinance, or otherwise -28-