08-10-00 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 2000 Theodore and Patricia O'Neil based on the fact that the property division for this lot was approved dependent on the fact that it was represented to the City that access for the lot would be via Keller Parkway, and based on the opinion of the Planning Commission that it is possible to provide access for the lot via Keller Parkway. Motion seconded by Carson. Motion carried 6 - 0. The neighbors present were informed that this matter will be considered by the City Council at their August 23, 2000 meeting. CUP - The Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit request made by 3179 SPRUCE Don Valento from the regulation prohibiting accessory buildings in the STREET - side yard for property at 3179 Spruce Street. VALENTO Mr. Valento reported that since he was at the last Planning Commission, it has been determined that he needs a Conditional Use Permit for his accessory building. The variance considered by the Commission in July was for a side yard setback variance for an accessory building. The Conditional Use Permit would allow the accessory building to be placed forward of the rear building line of the principle building. The City Planner reported that the City Council has not taken action on the Variance application. The Council has asked for additional information on the feasibility of installing a sprinkler system in the principle building. The Council expressed concern that construction of an accessory building rather than putting on an addition to the principle building was a way to avoid the sprinkler system requirement. Valento indicated that he has obtained a letter from an engineer that supports his position that the roof trusses of the principle building cannot support the load from a sprinkler system. This will be presented to the Council on August 23`d. Valento also noted that he needs to place the accessory building as indicated on his site plan due to the location of the 60 foot easement along the rear of his property. Valento pointed out that he cannot construct anything in the easement area, and noted that the accessory building as proposed would actually touch the easement line. Therefore, the building cannot go back any further. Valento further indicated that turning the building any would disrupt existing drainage of the site.