05/28/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 28, 2002 Councilmember Carlson confirmed that the plan is acceptable to the City Engineer. She stated she will approve the request because the property was platted as one -acre lots and is consistent with the other lots in the area. She is also in favor of the request because by setting up a larger property in this area it might be considered spot zoning and a larger lot is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. She added that she dismisses the argument regarding why the lots were combined in the first place. She stated the City did not receive enough information from the County to make a determination as to why the lots were combined. Mr. Joyer stated the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved the minor subdivision request. The park dedication fee was not discussed by the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated Mr. and Mrs. Thorp feel the lots were previously separate lots and they should not be subjected to the park dedication fee. Councilmember Carlson stated she believes that the City is aw separate lots at one time. But because the County did not have e determine why the lots were combined. f the fact that the lots were two information the City can not Mr. Joyer stated the City has to reach its own conclusion on. by t e lots were combined. There is no evidence of a written request from the property owners. Councilmember Dahl referred to the park dedicatioe .-es an stated no one seems to know if the County or the property owners requested the lot cmbiion. She stated she believes the park dedication has to be paid. She stated she does nit li.; . b°= the City is setting a precedent if the request is approved. She added she believes the req does comply with the character of the neighborhood. City Attorney Hawkins stated that the C has the legal authority to require the park dedication fee. Mayor Bergeson stated that it is possm e City did not have a park dedication fee set up when the original lots were set up. H m « t ssible if the City is collecting the park dedication fee for the second time. City Attorney Hawkins stated th. a are no records that a park dedication fee was previously collected. The current statute was adopted twenty years after the original lots were set up. He indicated he does not believe a park dedication fee was previously paid for the lots in question. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02 — 45 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Consideration of Resolution No. 02 — 46, Approving Variance from the Maximum Allowed Accessory Building Square Footage, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala advised the existence of this lot as a separate piece of property depends on City Council approval of the Variance and Minor Subdivision addressed in the previous agenda item (Thorp). Should this approval occur, then consideration of this request for a Variance is in order.