10-28-87 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council October 28, 1987 Ander•son Fahey pointed out that the Planning Commission r•ecommended denial of Gar~age the var•iance by a 3 to 2 vote. Also, the Planner~ has submitted a Var•i ance r~epor•t recommendi ng that the var•i ance be appr•oved. (Cont.) Scalze pointed out that the pr•oper•ty is cur•rently non-conforming and asked why the City would allow the non-confor•mity to incr~ease. The Planner• noted that it was his or•iginal under•standing that the gar•age would be used to house equipment of the mobilehome par~k. However•, at the Planning Commission the pr~oper•ty owner~ indicated that the gar•age woul d be used to stor•e hi s per•sonal pr~oper~ty. Mr•. Ander•son r~epor•ted that he would be stor~ing supplies and equipment for• the mobilehome par•k, and if ther•e was any additional space, his motor~cycle and snowmobile would be stor~ed in the gar•age as well. Fahey asked Mr~. Ander•son if he lived in the mobilehome which is adjacent to wher•e the pr•oposed gar~age would be. Ander~son r•epl i ed that di d not. Blesener~ asked how the gar•age would be accessed. Ander•son r•eplied that ther•e is a r•oad alongside the ar•ea wher~e the garage will be. The City Engineer r~epor~ted that ther~e is a 20-foot sanitar~y sewer• easement along the back lot line of the mobilehome par•k, and Mr•. Ander•son is pr~oposing to place the gar•age on this easement. The Engineer~ pointed out that the sur~vey submitted by Ander~son was done in 1962 and the sewer~ was installed a few years later•. This is why the easement does not appear• on the sur•vey. Fahey asked if buildings ar•e typically allowed on easements. The Engineer• r•eplied that typically they ar~e not, and if the building is allowed it would have to be with the under•standing that if the City had to access the sewer~ line in the ar•ea of the gar~age, the building would have to be r•emoved. Mr•. Bl esener• poi nted out that ther•e i s cur•r•ently a 9ar•age on the pr•oper•ty. Ander•son stated that that gar•age contains the water• tanks and electr•ical system for• the par~k and ther•e is no r•oom for• equipment stor~age. Bl esener~ r•epor~ted that ther•e appear~s to be r•oom to expand the exi sti ng gar•age. There is also dir~ect access to the existing gar~age off the dr~iveway. Blesener• felt expansion of the existing gar•age was a better• option than the one being pr~oposed. Blesener• stated that he could not suppor•t the var~i ance. Fahey noted that in the past the City has denied a var•iance for• a pr~oper•ty owner~ on Carla Lane to constr•uct a gar•age that did not meet setback requir~ements. Fahey stated that the pr~oblem is ther•e is not Page -10-