07/18/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 7_ Planning and Zoning July.18, 1979 The developer for East Birch Addition inquired as to why Mr. Hahn was not informed that there was an ordinance. This apparently had been up to the building inspector. There also was a communication problem with the city offices and residents. The next item on the agenda was a variance application by Mr. Cunningham for a long driveway over 300 feet in length. Mr. Cunningham was present. He was told that the purpose of the ordinance was to inform him that maintenance of the driveway was his responsibility and not the responsibility of the City, and that it should be main- tained such that emergency vehicles can get back to the property in case of fire. Beyond that the only other problem in this type of case was where someone had wanted to sell parcels of land off the driveway. In this case, he would have had to bring the driveway up to the standards of the city streets. Mr. Shearen moved to recom- mend approval to the Council. Mr. Doocy seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will be on the Council agenda for July 23. A letter from the planner in reply to the Commission's request to review duplex development in R-1 zones was read by Mr. Gourley. He suggested that th4,'might be one item the P & Z should look at. This request had been generated by '2ehbein's proposed rezone for duplexes, which will come up at the next meeting. It was suggested he rezone the 4 lots as well as his own as one package and under one fee. The Clerk is requested to relay this to Mr. Rehbein. The next item on the agenda, under old business, was Mr. Locher's review of Ordinance No. 20 in light of recent changes in open meeting laws. The review had been requested at a previous meeting. Mr. Gourley read the letter from the attorney and the items in the ordinance referred to. After discussion of the attorney's comments, the following changes were recommended: Rule 1 --in reference to the meeting time of 8:30 p.m. This should be eliminated entirely from the ordinance. Rule 9 --As recommended by the attorney, the word "of" in the fourth line should be changed to read "if." Rule 10 --It was felt rule 10 should be removed from the ordinance entirely. Rule 21 --The rule should read as is with -the addition of the following: "The rules may not be suspended, repealed, altered or amended when such action would not otherwise be in compliance with Minnesota Statute." Rule 24 --The following addition should be made to rule 24: "If there are special meetings held, every effort should be made to post a notice of the meeting and to contact the newspapers that are disseminated in the City, and even to contact radio stations and to notify anyone who may be particularly interested in any matters that may be discussed at any special meeting." Rule 26 --The following should be added to rule 26: "The deputy clerk, who has been appointed by the clerk, may act in place of the clerk, the clerk, in such instance, being responsible for the actions of the deputy clerk." As now drafted, the provisions of Ordinance No. 20 apply only to the City Council. It is recommended that Ordinance No. 20 be expanded to include all commissions and subdivisions of the City Council. Mr. Heath moved to recommend these changes to Ordinance No. 20, as outlined above, to the Council. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed.