CC_Minutes_2017_0515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 15, 2017 Page 32 Mayor Roe opined that it had actually never been resolved,thus the need to resolve it now as noted by Councilmember Etten. Mayor Roe noted that in comparison to the multiple dog ordinance, this did require a higher standard than that. Councilmember Etten agreed with the 75%. Without objection, staff was directed to use Item 4. Lines 505-506 Mayor Roe provided technical corrections to strike notice"...prior to consideration by the City Council,..." since the City Council did not consider it with a process outlined for staff consideration of a variance then applicable for appeal to the City Council, and therefore should read accordingly. Line 511 City Attorney Gaughan advised that he found the reference in line 507.a for clarity and notices pursuant to Section 407.07. Mayor Roe disagreed, noting that these variances were dealing with a nuisance not an abatement notice. City Attorney Gaughan advised that a variance could be requested after notice of abatement. Mayor Roe questioned if the entire section (#2, line 510) should be struck; since similar notice was addressed on lines 521-532. Mr. Englund advised that he read it as a property owner who had been notified of a nuisance on their property; and able to apply for a variance,but as noted by Mayor Roe, if there was already a city code in place that they were seeking a variance from, the nuisance may not yet exist. City Attorney Gaughan suggested a provision be included to that affect; since his comments had considered an existing nuisance requiring abatement. Therefore, Mr. Gaughan suggested retaining line 511, with notices as provided in Section 407.07.A. Lines 521-523 City Attorney Gaughan suggested enumerating this as one provision; addressing "notify"in line 521; "shall"in line 520; and"D"in lines 528-531 as a starting point for appeals to move all under Section 407.01. In line 201 of the proposed changes, Councilmember Etten referenced public hear- ing posting and questioned if that would be a violation of Item 5 in line 516 or if it should be added as an Item 6 referring to large commercial vehicles.