Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />November 14, 2000 <br /> <br />Pagc 4 <br /> <br />Public l'lcarinl!. continued <br /> <br />Motion by Hoffman, seconded by Samuelson, to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT THE RESOLUTION VACATING A UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN <br />BRIGHTON CORPORATE PARK V, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Lockc presented a spccial pennit to move an existing 20 x 22 ft. detached garage onto a <br />lot located at 664 10th 8t. NW. There currently is no garage located on this property and <br />the new garage will match the existing structure and meet required setbacks. This <br />application was made prior to the effective date ofthe new ordinance amendment <br />regarding accessory buildings over 400 sq. ft. requiring a special use permit. <br /> <br />Samuelson verified the garage will remain detached, but will be in close proximity to the <br />home. Jamcs Roettger, applicant, explained that the cost to move the garage is less <br />expensive than building a new garage, and the style matches the architectural structure of <br />the existing home. Roettger has spoke to adjacent property owners, and rcceivcd no <br />negative comments. <br /> <br />There were no comments from the audience. <br /> <br />Motion by Samuelson, seconded by Hoffman, to CLOSE THE HEARING. <br /> <br />5 Ayes ~ 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Motion by Samuelson, seconded by Hoffman, to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN <br />EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO BE MOVED ONTO PROPERTY <br />LOCATED AT 664 10TH STREET NW, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING <br />CONDITIONS: <br />1. THE DETACHED GARAGE MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIRED <br />SETBACKS. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Fulton presented consideration ofthe Utility Franchise Fee. Previously, Council <br />requested public informational meetings be held to discuss the potential implementation <br />of a utility franchise fee for Xce1 Energy's use of the City's rights-of-way (ROW). <br />Several mectings were held, and most of the public feedback was against the fee <br />implementation. Tn large part, the public preferred the continued use of property taxes to <br />generate revenues necessary for general operations. Based on the negative input received <br />and Council feedback, it appears it is not timely to consider the implementation of a utility <br />franchise fee. <br /> <br />Public Hearinl! <br /> <br />Utility Easement <br />Vacation - Dalco <br />Report 00-271 <br />Resolution 00-103 <br /> <br />Roettger Special <br />Permit Garage Move <br />Report 00-272 <br />Resolution OO~ 1 04 <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Franchise Fce <br />Report 00-273 <br />