Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 29, 2001 <br />Council Member Dahl seconded the motion. <br />Mayor Bergeson asked if the developer is aware of the conditions of approval. <br />Mr. Uhde indicated he is aware of and agreeable to the conditions of approval. <br />Council Member Reinert stated that when the City sold the lots they were not lots but undeveloped <br />land, which is why they were sold for $75,000. <br />Council Member Carlson agreed the lots were only rough land. She stated there was no guarantee <br />that the City would agree to the development or MUSA allocation when the lots were sold. She <br />stated the City needs to be more careful in the future so this situation does not happen again. <br />Mayor Bergeson asked if all the park issues relating to completion of <br />Public Services Director DeGardner advised all park issues have b <br />lots was actually $30,000 per acre. The developer still owes the <br />finish the trail corridors. The park will be fully operational. <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />ark have been addressed. <br />sed. The $75,000 for the <br />0 which will be used to <br />Resolution No. 01— 69, Approving Variance t "> an cessory Building Closer to the Front <br />Lot Line than the Principal Building, 2088 8 � Ave e, John Cartier, (3/5 Vote Required), <br />John Powell — CitEngineer Powell advis- <br />y'' arti - has applied for a variance from the <br />s �. <br />prohibition on building an accessory bu ; q.F _ �' oser to the front lot line that the principal building. <br />City Engineer Powell presented th s of the variance request noting that in considering all <br />requests for variance and in t • uent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: <br />1. That the p <br />conditions <br />erty i - stion cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />the official controls. <br />2. That the plig of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his <br />property not created by the land owner. <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable <br />use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings <br />in the same district. <br />5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br />10 <br />