05-13-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w t lb a.: To:Mayor Petersen & Crono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froas Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 16# 1991 Subioctx #1629 W. D. MacMillan/McNulty Constructic. 1700 Fox Street - Variance - Resolution Tjpany - List of bliiblts Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Denial Resolution Council Action Notice 4/16/91 Standard Variance Conditions City Attorney Opinion re: Home, ead Statur Memo i Exhibits of 4/2/91 Minutes « Memos from 1907 Approval Dis'TOSSion At your April 8th meeting. Council voted 3 to 2 to conceptually deny the variance request, and directed staff to d?2ft a resolution for the next Council meeting. Such a resolution for Council consideration is attached. You nay recall that the applicants request for fabling was ruled out of order, however, the conceptual denial had « Sfect So tabling in that final action on the matter was delayed. The denial resolution incorporates the hardships presented by the applicant. In order to adopt the resolution, the determination that those hardships are insufficient to justify granting the variances. At the April meeting, applicant correctly attachment of the proposed additions to the principal resi 2n the^Joperty woGld in fact not require city Council this would not accoBipllsh applicants goals, and 'g be practical or efficient, it certainly could occur. might be the method of attachment and what <3egree by various methods of attachment is still considered legitimate. If Council is concerned that approval ••rianfime seta a negative precedent, consider that due to the covenant this is without question a unique situation, in that: 1.The applicants have given upwhich virtually eliminates subdivision of this 13.5 acre parcel as long as the tennis court building exists.