Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Meeting of June 24, 1999 <br /> <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />Councilmember Daniels concurred and stated she supported the City Forester's recommendation for a <br />location to the rear of the house, which requires no variance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Clark asked if there was a wetland boundary in the rear of the lot. The Community <br />Development Director stated it was not relevant. <br /> <br />Gene Bebeau, 4800 125th Avenue NE, applicant, stated his land slopes down to the wetland so more fill <br />would be needed and if the shed was located to the rear of his house, it would impact more trees, and result <br />in a 50 foot driveway. He noted the City Forester's report references four trees, one being large but it was <br />rotting through the center and needs to be removed. Of the other three, one was a poplar tree and the <br />others were two eight-inch diameter basswood trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Bebeau stated he wants to be able to back his boat into the garage but if the orientation were rotated, he <br />would not be able to access the building. He stated he wished the Building Inspector would visit the site. <br />He stated for the building to be viable, it needed to be located as proposed. He stated he will remove a <br />t10werbed and fence for his preferred location and wanted to keep the driveway length to a minimum. <br /> <br />The City Manager stated the City Forester's letter recommended even if the location behind the house was <br />used, the driveway would still go through which would impact those same trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Bebeau concurred and stated the oak trees are, to him, very valuable. <br /> <br />Councilmember Daniels asked if the alternate site would still require a variance. The Community <br />Development Director stated the City Forester indicated the alternate site would have less impact but she <br />understood the property owner strongly preferred his location. <br /> <br />Council member Rose stated she was recommending the location farther back so the building would not be <br />pivoted and could be accessed. Mr. Bebeau stated that location would result in more trees being impacted, <br />a driveway that was 50 feet longer, and he and his two neighbors would have a view of the pole barn. <br /> <br />Council member Kolb agreed that the only hardship was the length of the driveway. She stated she <br />understood this was a significant financial hardship but she could not support it as a true hardship. <br />Council member Kolb stated she was unable to support the variance due to the lack of a hardship. <br /> <br />Mayor Ryan stated this was not a typical situation since the building would be over 400 feet off the road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Daniels stated the Council was not satisfied with this plan and was asking the applicant to <br />come back with an alternate plan. Mr. Bebeau stated this was a pole barn and there were no alternate <br />plans. <br /> <br />Councilmember Swanson asked if there would be a benefit to having the Building Inspector view the site <br />and add his recommendation. <br /> <br />The City Manager stated his concern was that there has been a number of other more substantial variance <br />requests that were denied due to lack of a hardship. <br /> <br />Councilmember Clark stated that while he would like to consider approval, the Council needs to have <br />rationale to base that decision on. <br /> <br />Mr. Bebeau stated he was not in a hurry to construct the building and would prefer the delay to obtain <br />another opinion. <br />