Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Council Action continued <br />Page 2 <br />September 18, 1996 <br />#2172 Gerald and Nancy Bloms, 4195 Forest Lake Drive <br />In a phone call to staff after the meeting, she alluded to a comment made by a Commission <br />member that future Councils cannot be bound by the actions or directives of a previous <br />Council. If this is the case, she questions why such a condition would be noted in the <br />resolution, especially since she feels it would only have a detrimental effect on the value of <br />her property when attempting to sell it at some time in the future. <br />Staff would ask Council to consider a different and more consistent wording with previous <br />actions of the Council as follows: <br />The property has been approved at 2,668 s.f or 16.8% of structural coverage per <br />Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) of the Municipal Code that would allow 2,375 s.f. <br />or 15%. Applicant and future owners arc hereby advised that should structural <br />improvements be proposed at some time in the future, the City may ask for <br />reductions in the areas of existing or proposed improvements in order to <br />maintain structural coverage at the approved level of 16.8%. <br />The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the unanimous recommendation of the <br />Planning Commission omitting the disclaimer dealing with future structural improvement. <br />The following options are available to the Council: <br />1. To adopt condition set forth by the Planning Commission; <br />2. To adopt condition suggested by staff; <br />3. At applicant's request, omit any reference to the structural coverage excess. <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: <br />To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution.