Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 26, 2000 <br />Morelan asked the minimum lot size in this district, and how it compares <br />to the buildable area of the lot. The Planner replied that the minimum lot <br />width is 100 feet and minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. The width <br />of 3179 Spruce is approximately 80 feet at the front, 100 feet at the <br />building line, and l32 feet at the back. <br />Fahey asked if the two buildings would be connected. Valento replied that <br />they would not. <br />Valento pointed out that there is an NSP pole approximately 8 feet from <br />the property line. Rather than have the pole moved, he is proposing a 9- <br />foot setback for the accessory building. <br />LaValle asked if the building could be twisted so that a variance was not <br />needed. Valento replied that it could not. <br />Fahey suggested that there was no reason not to put an addition onto the <br />existing building other than the cost of installing a sprinkler system. <br />Valento pointed out that there is a concrete apron at the back of the <br />building that is used for loading and unloading trucks, and disturbing that <br />area would cause traffic flow problems. .Valento was also concerned <br />about what would happen in 2003 when the easement with the Water <br />Department is re-negotiated. <br />Scalze again noted that the Belland and Stanke variances were granted <br />because of the extreme shallowness of these properties. Scalze was <br />concerned with the precedent that would result from granting this <br />variance. Scalze was concerned that the accessory building proposal was <br />a means of avoiding the installation of a sprinkler system. Scalze <br />suggested that perhaps the problem is too much use of a building and not <br />enough space on the property. <br />Pedersen pointed out that the adjacent property will never be built on. As <br />a result, the setback from the side lot line is in reality a long ways from <br />anything. <br />Morelan pointed out the narrowness of the lot and stated that he can see <br />justification for the variance based on this factor. <br />Valento pointed out that when the property was first developed, the <br />building had to be placed back further on the lot than what was desired <br />given the narrowness of the lot and the need to meet setbacks. Valento <br />indicated that the shape of the lot as well as the easements at the back <br />make the property a difficult one to work with. <br />