Laserfiche WebLink
issue variances but they <br />Page 5 <br />Councilmember Hodges stated that after looking at the property and how <br />well kept the property is with no neighbors and a large lot he felt it <br />is better to get, proper storage instead of leaving the equipment out. <br />He looked at the boat and it has to be this large of a building to house it <br />and still be usable. He would go along with the variance, in this case. <br />Councilmember Baumgartner stated he felt the problem is that when Mr. <br />Johnson went before the Planning Commission he said he was going to put <br />a garage door on the building. Mr. Johnson has a beautiful Yard and has <br />equipment that could be in the accessory building. Councilmember;saumgarfner <br />stated he would go along with the variance to give Mr. Johnson storage area <br />for his equipment. <br />Administrator Achen stated that the Council does <br />overturn the Planning Commissions' decision. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated that she looked at the property to see what was <br />on it. The City does have an ordinance for a specific purpose but Mr. Johnson <br />was asking for a variance for a logical reason. Councilmember Rowley wondered <br />how the neighbors felt. Councilmember Rowley felt that with the property it <br />is on and the intent, she would favor the building being erected in this <br />instance unless the neighbors are strongly against it and felt it would be <br />an ugly site on the property. <br />Sandra Shackle stated that she has nothing against this building at all. <br />Johnsons' 'yard is always clean and with the equipment you need to keep up <br />the property and the large yards you have to keep them under lock and key. <br />Lois Lestina, 6939 Pleasant View Drive, stated she lives next door to the <br />Johnsons and she is concerned about how many buildings are going to be allowed <br />on one property. This is the second variance that has been asked for. Mrs. <br />Lestina stated that they asked for a two car garage but Would to tear <br />down their existing garage first. She wondered if this proposed building <br />would fall to disrepair if the property is sold. <br />Mrs. Shackle stated that it is easier to keep up a large building than several <br />small ones. It is much neater and easier to get access. <br />Leon Godeke, 6942 pleasant View Drive, stated that Mr. Johnson really keeps <br />up his yard and uses his equipment a lot. The proposed building is way in <br />the back so it will not hurt anybody's property. <br />Mr. Lestina, 6939 Pleasant View Drive, stated that Mr. Johnson had already <br />received one variance to shelter a boat. <br />Mayor Pickar stated that in 1973 there was an addition to his garage, but it <br />does not state that it is for a boat. <br />Lois Lestina stated that she would rather see Mr. Johnson add onto the back of <br />his existing garage instead of having a lot of separate buildings. She stated <br />that they would like to put up a building. because they have not been able to <br />use their garage for a garage but they can only do this if they tear down the <br />existing garage. <br />Carl Beaurline, 6929 pleasant View Drive, stated that the issue here is <br />regarding the person presently living on the property. There are rules, <br />but there is also the safety and security of the persons property. He <br />