HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_89Jul10•
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 10, 1989
Chairman Black called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
Barry, Black, Boche, Carroll, Daykin, Duncan and Grittner. Also
present were Planners Susan Hoyt Taff and Tim Malloy, and Administrator
Wiessner.
Nestingen and Finegan.
Duncan moved, seconded by Daykin, to approve the June 5, 1989 Minutes
as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
H. Leonard Boche, 1776 Fry Street, requested a Permitted Accessory
Use for a Utility Shed to be located in the southeast corner of his
lot five feet from his property line. Construction will be as indicated
in the diagram he attached to his application and indicated the structure
will be painted green to blend with its surroundings.
Carroll moved, seconded by Daykin, to approve the Permitted Accessory
• Use as requested. Motion carried unanimously.
Barry arrived at 7:44 P.M.
Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. on the Request
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a parking lot in R-1 Single
Family District as requested by Dennnis Hunt on a lot owned by George
Peck, 1546 Crawford Avenue. Such Public Hearing Notice was published
in the Focus Newspapers at June 28, 1989.
Barry questioned whether the conditional use request should be considered
based upon the fact that Mr. Hunt does owe back property taxes.
Also, the future use of the shopping center should be considered
before acting on the request.
After further discussion, Carroll moved, seconded by Barry, to continue
the Public Hearing to August 7, 1989 if, and only if, Mr. Hunt has
provided the necessary requested information. Motion carried unanimously.
Dave Black and Planner Malloy reviewed the background of the Code
Amendments as chronologically listed in the agenda attachments.
Planner Malloy stated that the Planning Commission may want to reconsider
its action taken at its June 5th meeting in its motion for a code
amendment change on page two, paragraph three, to use the conditional
use permit process. The use of the conditional use permit in this
instance may be awkward because it requires every accessory structure
•on a corner lot to be put through the conditional use process which
means requiring a public hearing and fees associated with the request.
At the last meeting some Commission members had also expressed concern
about the criteria and felt there was a better way to handle such
situations.
PRESENT
ABSENT
6/5/89
MINUTES
APPROVED
LEONARD
BOCHE
PERMITTED
ACCESSORY
USE
APPROVED
PUBLIC
HEARING
REQUESTED
BY DENNIS
HUNT
CONTINUED
CODE
AMENDMENTS
Minutes
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 1989
Page 2
• Chairman Black then opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 P.M. on Code
Amendments to Section 9-4.O1, Subdivision 4, and Section 9-2.04,
Subdivision 1(c). Such Public Hearing Notice was published in the
Focus Newspapers on June 28, 1989.
Council Liaison Wallin arrived at 8:39 P.M.
Planner Tim Malloy reviewed the Code Amendment changes made on June
5, 1989 and made suggestions for other options that might be considered
instead of using the conditional use process.
There being no one wishing to be heard, Chairman Black closed the
Public Hearing at 8:50 P.M.
Carroll moved, seconded by Duncan, that the third paragraph of Page
2 (Accessory buildings, including garages, on a corner lot in a residential
district, may be located within the corner side yard subject to a
conditional use permit. The issuance of such permits shall comply
with the provision in Section 9-15.04 of this Code (conditional uses).
Design and placement of such structures must be consistent with the
surrounding residential district, and shall be evaluated based on
the following criteria: visibility, height, safety and potential
distraction to passing motorists.) be stricken and the following
language substituted: Garages on a corner lot in a residential district
shall have the same corner side yard setback as the principal structure.
• If required setback allows garage to be placed less than 15 feet
from the corner side lot line, this is permissible only if vehicular
access door faces either the a11ev or interior lot line.
After a discussion, the motion was approved subject to editing by
Planner Malloy that would create no substantive change.
Boche moved, seconded by Carroll, an amendment to Section 9-2.04,
Subdivision 2 (d) as follows: d. Through Lot: The minimum setback
from the rear. street o~-a3~ey lot line of a through lot shall be
thirty (30) feet. Motion carried unanimously.
Daykin requested an illustration be used in Section 9-2.04 of our
Code similar to the one used by the City of Minnetonka as was presented
to the Planning Commission by Planner Malloy.
Carroll moved, seconded by Boche, approval of Code Amendments to
Section 9-4.01, Subdivision 4, Section 9-2.04, Subdivision 1(c) and
Section 9-2.04, Subdivision 2(d) to be considered by the City Council
as a block of changes. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC
HEARING
ON CODE
AMENDMENTS
9-4.01,
SUBD. 4,
9-2.04,
SUBD. 1(c)
AND
9-2.04,
SUBD. 2(d)
APPROVED
•
Minutes
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 1989
Boche moved, seconded by Carroll, to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Submitted by:
Katherine J. Zi e n
Approved: August 7, 1989
•