Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 22, 1992 <br />Owen Hyland reported that he objected to any proposal <br />unless he knows exactly what is planned. Hyland <br />pointed out that the neighbors have listened to many <br />proposals by Slumberland in the past, and want to be <br />sure that they know exactly what Slumberland is <br />proposing. <br />Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 92-7-239 - CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING <br />TO CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR <br />ADDITION OF SEMI-TRAILER PARKING FOR SLUMBERLAND AT <br />3060 CENTERVILLE ROAD PENDING A RECOMMENDATION FROM TAE <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (4) Blesener, Scalze, Hanson, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />CUP FOR Hanson opened the public hearing to consider the <br />ACCESSORY application for accessory storage building more than <br />STORAGE 120 square feet in size submitted by Steven and <br />BUILDING Aeather Sutton, 3001 Payne Avenue. <br />3001 <br />PAYNE AVE. Steven Sutton appeared before the Council and reported <br /> that he understands that the Planning Commission has <br /> recommended approval of the proposal provided that the <br /> storage building be sided to match the house. Sutton <br /> reported that he planned to purchase a storage shed kit <br /> from a vendor, and that the materials provided in the <br /> kit would not match the house exactly. Sutton reported <br /> that to match the house exactly, the shed would <br /> probably have to be stick built, which would add <br /> considerable cost to the project. Sutton explained <br /> that he wishes to construct the storage shed to house <br /> equipment such as his lawn tractor and snowblower. <br />The City Planner reported that the primary concern with <br />such applications is that the shed would not be set up <br />to house a business operation. The Planner indicated <br />that this is not the case in this instance. The <br />Planner reported the Planning Commission was concerned <br />about the compatibility of the shed with the <br />neighborhood, and this is the reason they recommended <br />that the shed be sided to match the existing house. <br />The Planner reported that unfortunately the applicant <br />had to leave the Planning Commission meeting, and was <br />not able to respond to this recommendation. The <br />Planner reported that the Planning Commission was not <br />aware of the type of construction being proposed. <br />Page 4 <br />