CC PACKET 06082004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 ®� Page 6 1 Councilmember Wilkinson noted.there were many similarities in the operation of the two cities; 2 however, there were also many differences. She added the City of Zumbrota focused much,of its 3 time on the development of farmland. 4 5 Councilmember Faust explained this program was an attempt to have cities that appear to be 6 dissimilar gain understanding of their many similarities. He noted citizens tend to "live in"their 7 own communities and do not understand that someone living in another city is in the"same 8 kettle of fish." He indicated the two cities had many similar issues; however, the City of 9 Zumbrota had different challenges. 10 11 Councilmember Faust stated he was grateful Councilmember Wilkinson had been able to spend 12 the day in St. Anthony Village and he added he would go to Zumbrota on June 3. He indicated 13 he felt this program would strengthen the State and commented that"we all serve the same 14 constituents;"therefore, it was important the cities worked together. 15 16 VI. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS. 17 A. Planning Commission—May 18 2004. 18 1. Variance 04-045, re: Lovelette, for 3201 –32nd Avenue, square footage variance, 19 lot width variance and floor area ratio variance. 20 21 Planning Commission Vice Chair Hanson noted a public hearing was held before the Planning 22 Commission on May 18, 2004, regarding three variances requested by John and Joan Lovelette 23 for the construction of a new home at 3201 –32nd Avenue NE. Council was asked to review the 24 requests. 25 26 Vice Chair Hanson explained the following three variances were requested: 27 1. A square footage variance, as the property was only 8,750 square feet and the City's 28 ordinance required a lot size of 9,000 square feet. 29 2. The current ordinance required a minimum lot width'of 75 feet and this particular 30 property was 50 feet in width. 31 3. A floor area ratio (FAR) variance, as the floor area maximum was 30 percent of the lot 32 or, in this case, 2,625 square feet. The proposed FAR was 2,724 square feet; therefore, 33 the amount of the variance was 99 square feet. 34 35 Vice Chair Hanson indicated, following the public hearing held on May 18, the Planning 36 Commission recommended Council approve said requests, as the following requirements for 37 these variances were met by this request: 38 1. The property could not be put to reasonable use without this variance. The existing house 39 was below standards of the existing ordinance. The proposed home fit into the 40 neighborhood and was not obtrusive. 41 2. Condition predated the owner and the owner did not create the size of the lot. This 42 created a hardship and the property could not be put to use without the variance. 43 3. This was needed to allow the building of the home, as the extra-narrow lot posed ordinary 44 circumstances and was only applicable to this property. 45