PCMin_86Dec1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1986 Chairman Black called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Black, Grittner, Nestingen, Boche, Daykin, Duncan, Finegan and Northrop. Also PRESENT present was Council Liaison Hard. Mead. ABSENT Grittner moved, .seconded by Northrop, to approve the September 15, 1986 Minutes 9/15/86 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES APPROVED The Planning Commission reviewed the petition requesting amendment of Section 901.02, Subd. 2, 4070 Garage-Private of the Municipal Code. Hard reviewed the present ordinance and why the change had been requested (restoration of antique AMENDMENT cars). Hard then reviewed what the suggested changes Council had recommended. TO SECTION Finegan felt the suggested changes gave the property owners more latitude and was 901.02, in favor of the changes but not to just restrict the language to restoration of SUBD. 2, antique or collectible cars but cars that are in need of minor repair. 470 OF THE John Holmgren, 1744 North Pascal, stated he found the present ordinance too PiUNICIPAL • restrictive if enforced and if they are not enforced why was it adopted. CODE Tom Scaramuzzo, 1732 No. Simpson 'indicated he had complained to City Hall because he was tired of listening to an auto body grinder and felt the ordinance needed revising. He felt the issue related to noise and how much should a neighbor have to listen to and how often. Black agreed with Holmgren and felt that limits should be set and known and should not be left up to someone's judgment. Discussion then centered around whether the language should be written to restrict it to restoration or also include repair. Grittner was of the opinion that the language suggested by Council was too stiff in the ownership area since other members of a family may be interested in restoration or repair and it would be prohibited if the car were not registered in their name. Also, what in one person's mind may be a nuisance may not be a nuisance to another. During the summer someone may also wish to work on their car outside their garage so questioned whether that language was also too restrictive. The present ordinance needs to be rewritten to allow residents the ability to repair their cars but avoid the back-yard service garage. Boche supported the idea that work should not be done for compensation and that issue was crucial when the ordinance is rewritten. After further discussion, Finegan moved, seconded by Daykin, that the Planning Commission support the concept of modifying Article 70 and referred the matter • to the City Council to formulate details. Motion approved unanimously. Boche then moved, seconded by Grittner, that the following language be included