CC MINUTES 01261982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- ' Mr. Berg .explained that the drainage. and utility easements will be moved to the .northern portion of the site with the replatting and • NSP does not oppose the vacation. Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to adopt Resolution .82-013 which will permit the vacation of all that part of the ten foot drainage and utility easement as dedicated and lying adjacent southerly to the north line of Lot 5 , Block 1 , St. Anthony Industrial Park, except the east 10 feet thereof and except the westerly 10 feet thereof , finding , as did the Planning Commission , the adjoining properties would appear not to be adversely affected; no-public input of a negative nature had been expressed during the hearing before the Commission, and perceiving the vacation and resultant addition construction may add to the City 's tax base and appears to be consistent with policies of the City . The approval is contingent upon Central Engineering' s redirecting a majority of the natural water flow on the site to the west to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. RESOLUTION 82-013 A RESOLUTION VACATING A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN ST. ANTHONY INDUSTRIAL PARK ADDITION Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Letourneau and seconded by Councilman Marks to follow the Planning Commission recommendation that Central Engineer- ing be granted a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow construc- tion within 10 feet of the rear property line (a .15 foot rearyard setback in a Light Industrial district is required) . The variance is granted for Lot 4 , except the southwesterly 45 feet thereof , and all of Lot 5 , Block 1 , St. Anthony Industrial Park and that part of the North 350 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6 , Township 29 , Range 23, lying southeasterly of State Highway 88 (2930 Anthony Lane) , finding, as did the Planning Commission , that the existing Central Engineering administration building is set back ten feet from the property line and the addition proposed on Exhibit A will be in direct alignment with that structure , creating a more aesthetically pleasing appearance which would appear not toaggravate any existing condition, and, moreover, utilizing more of the property .can be a benefit to the community because of the increased tax base and employ- ment. The Council agrees that: (1) there will be a sufficient open space on the site because of the triangular shape of the northern portion; (2) granting this variance cannot be perceived to increase the value .of the property since the siting for the existing structure predates the current City Ordinance; and (3) a hardship for the owner would be created if the variance were not granted. Motion carried unanimously . Since Central Engineering officials convinced the Council they will • be able to provide adequate parking to accomodate this addition as well as the new engineering addition, which they plan to construct later, the Council agreed with the Commission that no action related