Laserfiche WebLink
<br />III <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />III <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />June 9, 1987 <br /> <br />3. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION SERVICES. <br /> <br />4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE IN THE 1986 <br />BUDGET FOR INSURANCE. <br /> <br />5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER TO REDUCE <br />CASH IN THE PARKS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #403. <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Contract: Elec. "Insp. <br />Report 87-154 <br /> <br />1980uBudget Change <br />for Insurance <br />Report 87-155 <br />Resolution 87-65 <br /> <br />Reduce Cash/Park <br />CP Fund #403 <br />Report 87-156 <br />Resolution 87-66 <br /> <br />6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET CHANGE FOR PUR- Budget Change - <br />CHASE OF LETTERING MACHINE. Lettering Machine <br />Report 87-157 <br />Resolution 87-67 <br /> <br />7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMITMENT OF FUND 1986 Sealcoating <br />BALANCE FOR 1986 SEAL COATING PROGRAM. Report 87-158 <br />Resolution 87-68 <br /> <br />8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TO REDUCE CASH IN THE SPECIAL PRO- Reduce Cash/SP #651 <br />JECTS FUND #651. Report 87-159 <br />Resolution 87-69 <br /> <br />Counc il Bus i ness <br /> <br />Benke noted staff had not heard from applicant since the last <br />council meeting (May 26, 1987). Mattila indicated he had contact- <br />ed Lyle Bellis and informed him of council action at that meeting; <br />applicant did not provide staff with additional information. <br />Bellis noted the property did contain over one-quarter acre; there <br />was no real conformity of any lots in entire area; had purchased <br />lot as a buildable lot. <br /> <br />Benke summarized earlier council questions and noted there were <br />grandfather provisions in the City Code to allow for non-conform- <br />ing lots; however, this lot is in a IIgrayll area as to whether or <br />not it would qualify for variance under the grandfather clause. <br />Benke questioned why the lot could not be made to be conforming <br />inasmuch as applicant owned adjoining property other than for <br />economic reasons. Bellis informed council the ten feet could be <br />added to Lot 4 from Lot 5 by a replat. <br /> <br />Mattila advised if this were done, a variance would still be re- <br />quired because the lot would be 15 feet short of the required 75 <br />feet width and the sideyard setback of the existing house on Lot 5 <br />would only be five feet. <br /> <br />Gunderman asked the applicant if he knew why this lot was platted <br />so narrow when the lots on either side were 146 feet and 165 feet, <br />respectively; Bellis stated he did not know. <br /> <br />Council Business <br />VN-252 - L. Bellis <br />"Report 87-160 <br />Resolution 87-70 <br />