Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--,.------ <br />.1'4 <br />Minutes of Special Council MeeUng Deceaber 22, 1980 <br /> <br /> <br />Miller reported that the Planning Coamission recoaaends Council <br />approval of the setback variance, based on the angle of the lot <br />line. <br /> <br />Applicant Bruce Fehr referred Council to a letter fro. Duane <br />Dietrich, owner of lot 3, supporting the proposed variance <br />(12-19-80) . <br /> <br />Woodburn moved, seconded by Hanson, that Council approve the <br />:L 4ft. sideyard variance. . <br /> <br />In further discussion, Killer reported thet the Planning Coa- <br />aission considered the option of altering the coaaon lot line <br />by aeana of . lot split and consolidation, but deterained the <br />variance to be the patb of least resistance. <br /> <br />~ Hotion did not carry (Hanson, Crepeau voting in favor of the . <br />motion; Woodburn, Wingert, Crichton voting in opposition). <br /> <br />Case No. 80-47, Lot Split and Consolidation - 3124 N. Haaline <br />Avenue ,Maurice Johnson . <br />Council was referred to drawing of proposed split and consoli- <br />dation wbich Miller explained will eliainate a variance for a <br />principle structure (Johnson house) and increase variance for <br />an accessory structure (neighbor's garage); noted that tbe reason <br />for the split is to provide sufficient sideysrd for the Joh..On <br />house to prOVide for erosion prevention. <br /> <br />Johnson explained that the additionsl 5 feet will allow hi. to <br />correct the grade at the corner of his house and construction <br />of a drainage swale between the two properties. Council was <br />referred to letter fro. neighbor, Andrea pal.quist (12-12-80), <br />indicating her swareness that her garage is non-confor.in. and <br />cannot be rebuilt or added to in it. present location. <br /> <br />Wingert aoved, seconded by Han.on, that Council approve tbe lot <br />split snd consolidation as indicated on drawing (received 12/16/80) <br />ba.ed on alleviation of a drainage pro'lem and eli.ination of a <br />non-confor.ing principle building. Motion carried unani.ously. <br /> <br />Resolution No. 80-65, Authorizing Submission of Coapreheneive <br />Plan to Metropolitan Council <br />Council was referred to proposed revised Comprebensive Develop- <br />aent Plsn, wbich has been approved by the Planning Com.iasion' <br />for subaission to Metropolitan Council. <br /> <br />Miller explained that he will be .aking responses to Metro <br />Council; wants Council to be sware of what is in the plan; noted <br />tbat ainor problems csn be worked out but if Council identifies <br />any .ajor policy problems, adoption of the resolution is not <br />appropriate until they are resolved. Miller reported tbat th. <br />. trail problems will be resolved before .aps sre printed, <br /> <br />Council deferred action until the December 29th .eetin.. <br />\ <br /> <br />leco..endation re Fees, lesolution No. 80-64 <br />After discussion, Wingert aoved, seconded by Banson, thst Council <br />. sdopt Resolution No. 80- 64, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 80-53 AND <br />ESTABLISHING PERMIT FEES POR APPLICATIONS UNDER CITY ZONING AND . <br />SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS, as a.ended. Motion carried unani.oualy. <br /> <br />Boheaian Cue Service Sign - 1660 W. Hwy. 96 <br />Crichton reported that additional wordage has been sdded to the <br />Bohemian Cue Service sign, increasing the area of the sign; qusried <br />whether tbie neceseitates an a.ended Special Use Perait. <br /> <br />After discussion, no action was take.. <br /> <br />(It was noted that the Special Use Permit has a 3 year review <br />clause.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br />