Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Minutes <br />August 6, 1984 <br />Page Four <br /> <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE EASEMENT VACATION REQUESTED BY <br />MR. RON KUHN ~ COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED <br />4-0. <br /> <br />8. Kruse Administrative Subdivision~Public Hearin&- <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Floyd Kruse has requested an administrative <br />subdivision to permit him to split two parcels of property; one 1.605 acres, and <br />one 1.849 acres in size from a larger parcel of approximately 20 acres. The <br />City Administrator indicated that the property is located north of 173rd Avenue <br />and east of HighwayfflO. The City Administrator further indicated that parcel 1 <br />is sufficient in size and can stand by itself as an independent parcel of property <br />because it has access as long as parcel 2 would be combined with the Dehn's Four <br />Seasons pr~perty. <br /> <br />General discussion was carried on regarding the administrative subdivision request <br />and the total property S1ze. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. No one appeared for or 1n opposition <br />of the Administrative subdivision request. <br /> <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST <br />BY MR. FLOYD KRUSE AND TO INCLUDE PARCEL 2 AS A PART OF DEHN'S FOUR SEASONS <br />PROPERTY. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />. 9. Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Swimming Pool Setbacks - Public Hearing <br />The City Administrator indicated that at the June 26, 1984 Planning Commission <br />meeting an ordinance amendment dealing with setbacks associated with accessory <br />uses specifically swimming pools was reviewed. The City Administrator further <br />indicated that the ordinance amendment would require that swimming pools be set <br />back a minimum of eight (8) feet from the rear and side yard lot line and that the <br />pool comply with front yard setbacks as currently exists. The City Administrator <br />further indicated that in the discussion regarding setbacks, the Planning Commission <br />also determined that a 5 foot high fence was more reasonable that the current 4 <br />foot high requirement. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. No one appeared for or 1n opposition of <br />the zoning ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Duitsman questioned the implications of the five foot high fence <br />requirement on present four foot high fences. Councilmember Engstrom indicated <br />that when the zoning ordinance was approved, it was the feeling that if a child <br />could climb a four foot fence, that child could also climb a five foot fence, <br />therefore the four foot requirement was approved. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle indicated that a five foot fence may spoil the aesthetics of a pool <br />area. Councilmember Schuldt indicated that he felt the extra foot was an additional <br />safety factor. <br /> <br /> <br />General Discussion was carried on regarding the setback requirements. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 84-7 AN AMENDMENT <br />MODIFYING THE CITY'S ACCESSORY USE SETBACK REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE THAT SWIMMING <br /> <br />