Laserfiche WebLink
reallocation of 1998 CDBG funds, and adoption of an additional resolution regarding the <br />selection of an alternate for the $39,000. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if the 2000 fund allocation could wait until the next Council meeting. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman reiterated staff's recommendation to use the County Rehabilitation <br />Housing Program, and he also mentioned a suggestion from Councilmember Connolly to build a <br />handicapped-accessible bridge in Cottonwood Park. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired whether the 2000 funds would be lost if not used at this <br />time. <br /> <br />Due to the absence of the Community Development Director and her knowledge of the issues, <br />Councilmember Connolly suggested a special meeting the night of the upcoming work session. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Hendriksen and seconded by Councilmember Connolly to adopt <br />Resolution #00-03-055 to reallocate 1998 CDBG funds for planning and housing rehabilitation <br />purposes. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Hendriksen, Connolly, Anderson, <br />and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Hendriksen and seconded by Councilmember Connolly to schedule a <br />one~item special meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in order to discuss an <br />alternative project for $39,000 in 2000 CDBG funds. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Hendriksen, Connolly, Anderson, <br />and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #4: Request for Exception to Moratorium; Case of Royal Oaks Realty, Inc. <br /> <br />As requested, City Attorney Goodrich presented the City Council with Section 4 of the <br />Moratorium Ordinance entitled "Undue Hardship Exceptions." <br /> <br />The City Council proceeded to review the five exceptions for consideration. Councilmember <br />Hendriksen failed to see that even the first exception was met. He noted that the current zoning <br />isn't even applicable for the proposal. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec pondered whether the Council could treat one applicant different than the other <br />(referencing the recent lifting of the moratorium for a project on County Road #116). <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson, stating that she would like to see a reconfiguration of the proposal, <br />noted that if the applicant were allowed to go ahead and develop a portion, the City would not be <br />able to use that portion in the reconfiguration. <br /> <br />City Council/March 14, 2000 <br /> Page 7 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />