1975-11-12 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Plannlny ~omnission minotas Page 4 ~ Rovember 12, 1975 David Jahnke. Property involved - 8408 E~stvrood Road. tdinor StIM1 Hi si~n. Fiotion by M=. Naake to approve the subd1v15~un request of David Jaiuike, 8428 F.astwood Road creatinQ two 1ots: 1) 127 ft, wide on Eastwood by 473 ft. deep and 117.5 ft. wide on Suno side. 2) 234 ft. X 85 ft~ Motion seconded by Mackeben and carried {4 ayes~. Patrick Pt:111grino. Property involved - 2848 WoodcPest Orive. Variance request to install aversize accessory 6uilding, (480 square feet). (refer to Chapter 40.03, subdivision 2-'6), Ms. liaake stated Chat this request has been before the Planning Comnlssian at the iasL meeting and was tab7ed until a study could tre made of other comiwrities policy on accessory buildings. Ms, Naake read tha r~port. None of the other cities surveyed wouid a~lo~r a building of this type under tHe1r ordinance. Motlon by Haake to deny the request of Mr. Pe171grino represented by Mr. Kingland for a variance request to build an oversized accessory building. This motion was seconded by Nancy Burmeister and passed(8 ayes, 2 abstained). /~~~ Phy111s Blanchard abstained because she was not at the last meeting and was ~.r,,• not familiar with the entire request. Mr. Mackeben feit tio buitd onto the exiscing structure wouid be compounding this situation. Mr. Ran Smith representing Arthur Spagenski appeared before the Planning Commi,sion as e non fee item to get a feel for whether or not the Planning Commission would be 1n favor of a 1ot with less than a 30 foot setback. Ther~e was a discussion among Commission members concerning non-fee items. The Comnission felt that with the addition af another building inspector +n the city office thers should be no reason for persons to appear before Lhe~;. aa non-fe~ items. Any questions they may have could be answered by the buildin~ inspectur. ~dotion by 3utmeister that there should'not be~any encauragement b'y fhe st~ff for appiicants to come berore the Commission without paying the rn.qulred Fees. This motion was seconded by Haake and passed (9 a,yes). The Comnission mo~;ed to the 7ost item o~ the agenda. Ms. Haake read the letter from tne Minnesota Department or Highway comnEnting on Mounds View Co^,irehensive Plan. The Comn9ssion went through the letter and the following are their comments in regard to: 1. The Planning Commission w~uld like to see an index in the Comprehensive Plan, 2. vaiid, the Planhing Cormissloq concurs, 3. prefer Ccuprehensive Plan stand as it is. 4. Comp. Plan'stand as 1t is. _ 5. acY.nowiedged. 6, acknowiedged, 7. acknowledged, 8. disagree that County ~'~ Road J and Red Oak Drive are classed as minor arterials along with Highway 10. ~j The fronting of residents ar~ County Road J and Red Oak Drive wi11 cont7nue to exlst. The Planning Com~nission does not egree with the classification of minor arterials. 9. The Commission would like a of the table mndifted (Octaber, 1975). 10, comnent acknosvledged, 11. comments ncted and what do you teel' would be an alternative, 12, great. Adjuur~ment. il, OU p.m. Respectfuily submitted, Arlene Peddycoart, Recording Secretary