07-23-08 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 23, 2008 Holm reviewed pictures of his property pointing out his efforts to maintain the property. Holm stated that he did not want to sacrifice the safety of his employees by moving the outdoor storage further into the site. He also noted that he does not have a front-to-back layout on this site, but rather a side-to-side layout. Allan asked the height of the fence. Holm reported that it was 6 feet. Allan indicated that if the fence had been issued a building permit, the height would have been required to be 8 feet. Allan stated that she agreed that the property was well maintained. She suggested that the fence be made higher to provide better screening. Karen Holm suggested that plantings would accomplish the same thing. Montour asked how many businesses were located on Woodlyn Avenue. Dave Holm estimated 4 or 5. Blesener questioned how to justify the granting of a Variance in this case. Keis indicated that he sympathizes with the property owner, but noted that the Council just revamped the outdoor storage regulations and he felt it did not make sense to violate those new regulations. Keis stated that he was not saying that Holm could not have the outdoor storage, it just has to be located properly on the site. Karen Hohn pointed out that in addition to the portable restrooms, they have trucks and trailers that have to maneuver on the site. Dave Holm indicated that the push the storage further into the site would be a safety hazard. Holm reported that he is trying to keep things spread out as much as possible. Allan asked about screening the outdoor storage area. Karen Holm indicated that arborvitaes could be used to provide year-round screening. Montour felt the hardship to justify the Variance was the public health, safety, and welfare noting the need for safety for the people working on the site. The City Attorney indicated that a hardship cannot be created by the property owner. He also noted that the Council has to consider each Variance request separately and on its own merit. The Attorney noted that if a property owner cannot put his property to a reasonable use without a Variance, that is justification for granting the Variance. He also noted that the City cannot guarantee safety on each property given the individual driving standards followed by each driver. He also noted economics cannot be used as a standard in granting a Variance. 14