Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-4- <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br /> <br />September 8, 1980 <br /> <br />In discussion, concern was expressed regarding rezoning of the motel <br />parcel without rezoning the restaurant parcel as well. Wingert moved, <br />seconded by Ranson, that Council achedule a public hearing for the re- <br />zoning of the Town Crier property on Monday, September 29, 1980 at <br />8:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously, <br /> <br />Wingert moved that Council approve the rezoning of the subject parcel <br />from 1-2 to B-2 motion was seconded by Ranson. <br /> <br />After further discussion, Woodburn moved, seconded by Crichton to table <br />the matter until thO' ,SeAtember 29th Council meeting. Motion did not <br />carry (Woodburn, 'r-o;~~-, , voting in favor; Wingert, Ranson, <br />. <br />Crepeau voting in OPposition). 4It <br /> <br />Original motion did not carry (~~, Ranson, Wingert voting in favor <br />of the motion; Crichton, Woodburn voting in opposition). (4 votes needed <br />to carry.) <br /> <br />Case No. 80-24; Variance for Garage - 3131 North Lexington <br />Wingert reported that the building is down; his perception is that you <br />still cannot see around the corner because the sight line is obstructed <br />by the retaining wall, not the house and proposed gsrage; noted there <br />haa been a sight line improvement, but not the improvement expected. <br />Woodburn said he feels the situation is worse than it ever was. <br /> <br />Weltzin suggested that the only alternative is for the County to re- <br />negotiate with Carrolls to regrade their yard and lower the wall; does <br />not know if this will be receptive; aaid County feels the sight line <br />is adequate. Wingert aid he was not able to see car lights at night <br />approaching County Rd. D from the North; would like to see what options <br />are available to the City. <br /> <br />Ranson reminded that actually the only prOblem before the Council tonight <br />is application for variance. <br /> <br />Miller showed a tranaparency of the Carroll site and adjacent County <br />property to the south; noted that if Council determined north line of <br />County property to be a sideyard, proposed gsrage could be located 5' <br />from that line, which would reduce the front setback vari.nce. <br /> <br />Photos were shown by Mr. Carroll, taken from County Road D., indicating <br />that the proposed garage location would not interfere with the line of <br />sight. Photos were also submitted by Mr. Morgan indicating a sight <br />problem caused by the wall. <br /> <br />Council concurred that there is s sight problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll suggested thst a settlement be reached which would be in <br />everyone's interest; s ~gested top 3 stones of vall be removed, and tree, <br />if necessary, in exchange for garage, which is well back fro. the line <br />of sight; if no garage, will not permit more reduction of their front <br />yard. <br /> <br />Mrs. Harty asked heigh of garage - answer was about 11 feet, to blend <br />with roof of house. Mt,. Harty said you can't see anythinv at the stop . <br />sign locetion on County Road D; its a dangerous intersection; called <br />St. Paul requesting an 1ndependent traffic study of the intersection. <br /> <br />Weltzin explained that County Road D grade was reduced at 'he request of <br />the residents;appears by doing this we have ~eated more p~cblems. <br />Crepeau noted that the proposed garage has nothing to do w3th the line <br />of sight. <br /> <br />Mrs. Bamberry reported <br />NSP will not permit co <br />reported that telephon <br /> <br />hat NSP has an easement where gar~ <br />ruction of a garage on its power <br />,bles run underground on the powe <br /> <br />is proposed; <br />"ement; also <br />line easement. <br />