PCAgenda_90Nov26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2990 PAGE 2 ~Cl~ IQ/~~ allow Mr. Gorringe to construct a double garage with the garage entrance in the same location as the existing garage. He explained that the Planning Commission at their October 11, 1990 • meeting had recommended approval of the variance with the stipulation that no parking will be allowed on the northern half of the apron to increase visibility from the adjacant alley. Following a brief discussion, Ciernia moved approval of the variance with the driveway parking restriction as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. DISCLISSION~OF CODE REQUIREMENT REGARDING SCREENING BETWEEN S~rePn~nq RESIDENIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND RELATED COMPLAINT AGAINST -~/A~~~ AUTO REPAIR SHOP AT 1565 HAMLINE ,~uQ Baldwin presented a brief review of past complaints relating to the appearance of the repair shop at 1565 Hamline and a staff report addressing a section of the present City Code which relates to screening between businesses and residential areas. The complainant, Warren Peterson, 1373 W. Hoyt, explained that he has lived four houses west of the business for 28 years and had no problem until the business changed from a service station/garage to a heavy mechanical garage business. He noted problems such as unlicensed vehicles, junk, old tires, unmowed grass, unshoveled snow, and the fact that some of the vehicles had been on the lot for months. Mr. Peterson questioned why such problems are prohibited in residential areas but allowed in a business zone. He also felt that screening would not be a proper solution as the problem would still remain behind the screening. City Planner Susan Hoyt reviewed the present screening requirements and presented slides of various businesses within the City which abut residential zones. She explained the complexity of retroactive screening where the building, parking and access drives are already on the site limiting space for creative screening. Council held a lengthy discussion regarding inconsistencies in the City Code, the possibility of addressing some of the problems by code revision, and whether or not requiring screening of every business is feasible or practical. Wallin inquired if elimination of the junked cars would meet Mr. Peterson's immediate concerns to which he replied he would like the mess cleaned up, including the junked cars and tires and general maintenance of the business with some concern for neighbors. Gedde felt that there are enforcable sections of the present code which would address some of the problems and recommended that a letter be written to the owner of the business requesting him to clean up the area (junked cars, tires, etc)., with a time limit for conformance. Council concurred. Future possible code changes will also be studied. Following further discussion, Council agreed they were not in favor of enforcing the .screening requiremenmt in all existing businesses and directed staff to draft new language to allow more flexibility, such as requiring screening with change of use or intensif ication of the business, and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. L~