Laserfiche WebLink
• MINUTES <br />REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />DECEMBER 5, _1988 <br />Chairman Black called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. <br />Black, Duncan, Nestingen, Daykin, Finegan, Grittne <br />Also present was Council Liaison Wallin. <br />Boche and Carroll <br />Nestingen moved, seconded by Barry, to approve the <br />7, ]_988 Planning Commission Minutes as presented. <br />unanimously. <br />r and Barry. PRESENT <br />ABSENT <br />November 11/7/88 <br />Motion carried MINUTES <br />APPVD. <br />John Burns, 1910 Asbury, requested a permitted accessory use JOHN <br />for a storage shed. He reviewed the placement of the shed BURNS, <br />on his lot and stated that he found it to be the most convenient 1910 <br />area in his lot for such shed. The shed is ]_1 feet high, is ASBURY, <br />bolted to a cement slab and is enclosed behind a fence on the PER- <br />Roselawn side of his property. Discussion centered around MITTED <br />the fact that the applicant was unaware that a permitted accessory ACCESS- <br />use was necessary so construction had already been completed. ORY USE/ <br />As a result, such shed is located approximately three feet VARIANCE <br />from the ]_ot line where city ordinance requires a 30 foot setback APPVD. <br />on side lot lines of corner lots. Daykin was of the opinion IN NEW <br />that the shed is located too close to Roselawn and Nestingen LOCATION <br />stated that the reason given for placement does not fit the <br />variance criteria for hardship (a variance would be required <br />if such shed were placed in the area it is presently located). <br />After further discussion, Finegan moved, seconded by Nestingen, <br />that a variance would be granted up to the front edge of the <br />garage or if Mr. Burns desires, a permitted accessory use would <br />be granted for placing the shed in another location within <br />the required setbacks. Motion approved unanimous]y. The Commission <br />determined that the shed will have to be moved to another location. <br />The Commission considered a request that Section 9-10.01, Subdivision <br />2, of the Municipal Code be amended to add game arcades as PUBLIC <br />a conditional use in a B-2 district. The Commission then scheduled HEARING <br />a Public Hearing on the proposed code amendment for 7:45 P.M., ON CODE <br />January 9, 1988. AMENDMENZ <br />A Public Hearing on a conditional use request from Joseph and PUBLIC <br />James Sacco to establish a game arcade in the Northome Shopping HEARING <br />Center was scheduled for 7:45 P.M. on January 23, 1988. ON COND. <br />USE <br />Planner Tim Malloy reviewed the subdivision plan portion of <br />• <br />