2000-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Meeting of June 24, 1999 Page 13 The amendment failed. AYE: None. NA Y: Councilmembers Clark, Daniels, Kolb, Rose, Swanson, and Mayor Ryan. Motion failed. Action 99-326 (AI 11.13) Moved by Councilmember Swanson, seconded by Councilmember Daniels, to direct staff to submit a report on speed humps on a controlled street and other traffic control they identify to the Council at a Workshop and then to a neighborhood meeting within one month. Councilmember Clark indicated support for staff to provide a recommendation for traffic control on Baltimore Street, Davenport Street, and the Service Road. Motion adopted unanimously. Second Reading - Ordinance No. 99-1794, Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easement for Lot 6, Block 1, Heatherwood 3rd Addition, Vacation No. V99-08, Adding Chapter 146H Action 99-327 (AI 11.18) Moved by Councilmember Rose, seconded by Council member Kolb, that the reading be waived and Ordinance No. 99-1794, "Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easement Lot, Lot 6, Block 1, Heatherwood 3rd Addition, Vacation No. V99-08," be approved. Motion adopted unanimously. Resolution No. 99-160, Granting a Variance to Place a Pole Building in the Side Yard, Gene and Vicki Bebeau, 4800 -12Sth Avenue NE, (Case File No. 99-36/SLK) POSTPONED FROM 6-3-99 Mayor Ryan stated this item had been postponed and the motion on the floor from the June 3, 1999 meeting was to approve. The Community Development Director explained this item was postponed at the June 3, 1999, meeting in order to obtain information from the City Forester regarding trees on the lots as well as the type of structure being constructed on the site. Currently, the zoning ordinance that regulates FR (Farm Residential) properties requires accessory buildings and detached garages to be placed in the rear yard only. The applicant was proposing to place a pole building in the side yard to the east of the existing home constructed with a concrete floor and slate blue vertical steel siding to closely match the color of the existing home. The proposed pole building would be approximately 1,200 square feet in size. The applicant was proposing to use the pole building for the storage of a boat, garden tractors, seasonal items, and a car. The applicants' property was unique to some extent in that it has a large wetland located within its boundaries. The site was also heavily wooded. If the variance was granted the pole building would be located approximately 440 feet off of 12Slh Avenue NE. Because of the distance and amount of tree cover, the pole building would likely not be visible from 12Slh Avenue. However, there was not enough evidence in this case to prove an undue hardship exists for the property owners. Councilmember Rose stated she has the same concerns regarding input from the City Forester who indicated the proposed location was not the best in terms of tree preservation. She noted that this was a five-acre parcel and stated she does not support the variance.