CC 10-11-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ... Minutes of Special Council Meeting October 11 , 1983 Page Two The location of the stotage shed was described to be within the r/w - can be moved. Mi lie r noted that an accessory building should be at the 40 ' fron t setback line (both streets) same as the house Jo or 10 ' from rear or other side property line. It was explained that you can build over a private sewer line, not a City Sewer. Miller said he sees no problem with construction of a garage over a sewer service; they are often run under basements. Flor said he'd have to move his patio and gas line, if he built to the south. . In further discussion, Flor described the proposed garage to be 3-car, with the exis ting 16 ' wide door and an additional 9 ' wide door; needs the addition for storage of boat and snowmobiles; said he cannot put his campe r ins ide, even if addi tion is granted; would nee d a l4\:;' high door. It was explained that campe rs not housed indoors, should be parked in the rear yard, 10 ' from a property line, and screened from view. It was queried whether a 6' wide addition, putting the garage in line with the house across the street, would be sufficient to store the boat and snowmobiles. Flor said his boat is 7'4" wide, a 6 ' wide addition would not be adequate for his needs. Hicks moved, se conde d by McAllister, that Council gran t the 29\:;' variance for the 12 ' addition (10.5' se tb ack from Lexington Avenue r/w) , b ssed on the hardship, of the uniQue excessive r/w along the i r lot (16 ' wider than along lots to the south): In further discussion, Mulcahy expressed his concern re finding a hardship; not convinced of the need for a 3-car garage, especially when it doesn't fit into the 20 ' setback previously required. Motion did not carry. Hicks voting in favor of the motion; Woodburn, Ch ris tiansen, McAllister, Mulcahy voting in opposition. (1-4) Case No. 83- 2 5 , Si gn Variances - Shaw Lumber Company 3776 Connelly Avenue Council was referred to re p 0 r t of Board of Appeals (8-31-83) , Planning memo (8-31-83) , Planning Commission Minutes (10-5-83) and to transparencies of the Shaw Lumber site and s urroundin g area. Mi lIe r explained that two sign s are requested, both requiring variances: Sign III is proposed to be located on an e.as e men t on the Flaherty p rope rty at the corner of Connelly Avenue and County Road E, a directional/informational off-site . sign. Miller explained that he questioned whether an off-site sign meets the considerations for granting a variance (Ord. 216 - Sign Ordinance) ; reported that Attorney Lynden feels this interpretation of the ordinance can be made by Council. Mi ller reported that the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend app roval of the off-site directional/informational sign, as proposed. Sign #2 is proposed to be located on the Shaw Lumbe r C omp any property oriented to Highway 51, is a business sign, and is intended to eliminate at 1 e as t aome of the existing signage; the proposed sign is to be 50' in height (requiring a 34' height va ri an ce) and 288 sq. ft. in area (req ui ring an area variance of 188 sq. ft) (16 ' he i gh t and 100 sq. ft. area pe rmi t ted) - __._.._u___._n_