10/17/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 2 Planning and Zoning October 17, 1979 employment, particularly the building inspector, to get all of it straightened out and bring it back to the Board in an orderly manner, so the Board knew where it stood in the matter: Mr. McLean felt Mr. Mobley should be instructed to deal with the building and the land use permit, since there were supporting permits, to clear that record. The Council minutes dated July 23, and the Planning CommW9D minutes dated July 9 and June 20 were read; the P & Z had approved a specialOor Mr. Klenck to park his trucks in November of 1978i however, the Council had mistakenly issued a permit to build a pole barn. There was a note from the Clerk dated Octcber 10, 1979, that the permit for the building had never been issued, and also that the permit from the DNR had never bin issued either; however, Mr. Klenck indicated he had the DNR permit as of last year.{ Mr. McLean noted this Board had denied the permit to run vehicles over 9,000 poun�'scon the city street, and the Council had not taken any action on the special use permit, as no further action was necessary. He asked Mr. Klenck if it was a fact that the business directly implied operating 9,000 pound vehicles over the same roads. Mr. Klenck indicated these vehicles were no different than a cement truck or school bus; that they came in empty and went out empty; that the street past him was in just as bad a condition as the one he used; and that he was here in good faith trying to get what- ever he needed passed to keep doing what he had been doing for the last 7 years, Mr. Shearen asked what the road limit was on that road, and Mr. McLean indicated it -was very minimal and had never been brought up to city code. Mr. Clenck indicated the trucks wieghed 18,000 pounds total, divided by three for the axles. Mr. McLean noted the code on trucks was not a three -ton axle, but 9,000 pounds gross wieght. Mr. Klenck said that in comparison, his neighbor had a mobile home with only two axles, but because this was considered recreational, it was not considered, but damaged the road as much as his trucks would. Mr. Shearen asked if the signatures represented the majority of the adjoining property owners, and Mr. Klenck indicated he had all but one, and Pointed these out on the map.; Mr. Shearen moved to recommend to the Council they approve the special use permit for Mr. Klenck to park two vehicles on his property, not parked in there loaded, and that he be allowed to operate a business from a residential address, and that the permit be issued on an annual review basis. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor with the exception of Mr. Heath who voted no. The motion was declared passed. Mr. McLean noted the date of review for special use permits was July 1. In reference to the building Mr. Klenck will speak to Mr. Mobley again, and if there is no response, will contact Mr. McLean in order to get the situation cleared up. Mr. Heath asked if in the future the Board could ask the Council to change the ordinance in respect to special use permits, to not allow the use to go with the land; however, Mr. Shearen indicated he thought this was state lair. -1 The next item on the agenda was discussion of a variance for Tim Rehbein for 7851 Knoll Drive, the problem being that because of an error, the house setback on the south side was about 8'6" rather than the 10 ft. required. Mr. Rehbein said this was for discussion only, and if the Board were favorable, he would go ahead with a certificate of survey. As a matter of information;Mr. McLean asked whether he was supplying a plot plan on these showing the building n the surveyed lot before the building permit was gotten; Mr. Rehbein indicated they did, but that their own drawings were used, Mr. McLean indicated the city had little sympathy for the builder in these situations; however, Mr. Rehbein thought that the end result in this case was not as serious as in some other recent cases, because it was a corner lot with good access from the garage side from the street. Mr. Gourley indicated the Board's position on Lyndal Nelson's request for a variance for a similar situation,and also in the one before that, was that they didn't want to grant variances to compensate for mistakes that were the fault of the developer; they would, however, grant a variance for the transfer of land and moving lot lines. He noted that if the Board started varying the setbacks, they would be forced to draw lines at some point as to where they would stop --5 ft., 4 ft., 3 ft., etc. Mr. Shearen asked if it would be a problem in this case to transfer land from the adjoining -.landowner, and Mr.