Agenda - Council - 02/11/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-76- 4. The accessory building is designed with a soffit, fascia, and eave overhang to match the home. While reViewing this section of City Code, the Planning commission determined that some other housecleaning type amendments were necessary as follows: 1. Regulate heights of accessory buildings by lot size versus whether the property is'in or out of the MUSA. 2. When the accessory building is xvithin five feet of the principal building, add in .the option to construct the accessory building with a one-hour fire rated wall instead of requiting it to be attached to the principal building. 3. Elimination of the requirement that states accessory buildings within ten feet of the principal building must comply with the same setback requirements as the principal building. The planning Commission held a public.hearing on the most recent version of this' ordinance amendment on December 12, 2002, and there were no verbal or written comments submitted. MOtion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Elvig, to introduce an ordinance to amend Section 9.11.02 of City Code regarding accessory uses. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, CounCilmembers Cook, Elvig, Kurak, Pearson, Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: NOne. Case #7: Settlement of Sunwood Drive Right2of-Way Condenmation Action -City Attorney Goodrich stated that in 2001, the City commenced a condemnation action to acquire additional right-of-way and related drainage facilities from the State of Minnesota through the Pollution COntrol Agency for construction of Sunwood Drive between Sunfish Lake Boulevard and C.R. #116. This action also included acquisition of right-of-way for a short segment of Azurite Street. The Court-appointed land commissioners have viewed the subject parcels. The City's appraiser appraised the State's damages at $52,300.00 and the City agreed to an additional $750.00 payment as rent to compensate for the City's early entry onto the subject parcels. The state has now determined, as a result of its own appraisal, that the City's appraisal is reasonably accurate and desires to settle the damage issue without further court hearings. The City will need to make an additional payment of $500.00 to the State which is a statutory requirement intended to assist the landowner in payment, of its appraisal fees. In addition.to the monetary payment for the land interest acquired, the State. requires an easement from the City for its water utility lines, which cross Sunwood Drive and serVe the State's .water treatment facility: The water treatment facility is a part of the State's water monitoring program relating to the Anoka Regional Landfill. Staff requested authorization to enter into the Settlement Agreement. Councilmember Kurak noted that the $52,300 has already been paid. City Council/January 14, 2003 .Page 16 of 27