01/04/2000 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 Nancy Drive residents then if each street was considered separately. Another neighborhood meeting will be held before the hearing, to inform residents of the cost of assessments. Staff added that Council could decide to assess the projects separately if a public hearing is published and held for each street. The City Attorney added that if the project is published as one project it must be treated as one during the entire process. Staff recommended two (2) separate public hearings be held so the City may proceed as individual projects if necessary. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 99 - 96, (To holding two (2) separate public hearings on November 22, 1999). Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 99 - 96 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Site Plan and Variance for Shirley Kaye's, Jeff S Required) - Staff advised the application for a site plan review is building for Shirley Kaye's, a bar and restaurant at Lake Drive and CSAH 49). The plan includes additional dining/bar area paved parking. The variances are requested because both the would not meet the shoreland setback fro required on a natural environment lak stalls. /5 Vote to the existing ad (CSAH 23 w liquor store, and building addition and the parking lot Water Level of Rice Lake: 150 feet lance is requested for the number of parking The Planning & Zoning Bo. = °o a site plan and variances on April 14, 1999, with conditions. The appli uested several extensions to redesign the building and site plans to meet the concerns e the Planning & Zoning Board and staff. Since then, staff has reviewed several revise an to advise the applicant on how to resolve the concerns. Staff advised the City must make the following findings before approving a variance request: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 10