PL PACKET 03181984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

&Y-Trj ar� Mr. Berg had included in the agenda packet all pertinent documentation related to the ,adoption of Resolution 81-081 approving the barber- beauty . shop usage for 3909 Silver Lake Road under the Hedlund PUD. Included. with copies of minutes of meetings where the approval was developed, was the November 12 , 1980 , letter from W. R. Burlingame* of the First State Bank of New Brighton extending the maturity date for the -Irrevocable Letter of Credit to November 30 , 1981. Mr. Berg said the owner of the shop, Craig Morris , had recently assured him all conditions. set for approval of the plan will be fulfilled before the deadline in October. The, Administrative Assistant was requested to write a letter sometime in August to Mr. Morris , Gordon Hedlund and Mr. Burlingame telling them of the Commission' s concerns , es- pecially regarding compliance with landscaping and parking conditions set by the Council when this usage was approved under the PUD and to remind them that the existing signage for the shop was intended only as a temporary measure and that it will very likely have to be removed. The Chairman then thanked Mr. Berg for the maps and minute documenta- tion he had submitted for this meeting as well as all the research he does in advance of each Commission meeting, which Mr. Bjorklund personally finds invaluable. _ The new sign ordinance may possibly be returned for Commission consideration in August, the Chairman reported. Mr. Sopcinski said he foresees the City entering the same type of quagmire with the approval of the Danelski solar addition as with the sign ordinance. He believes the City was "hoodwinked" into dis- regarding ordinance requirements for setbacks for an addition for which testimony was drastically altered between hearings. As an • example, he recalled the first claim made by Mr. Danelski that the larger addition he first proposed would reduce his heating costs by 30% which was reduced by the architect at the next hearing to the claim that the smaller addition would "be self sufficient with perhaps a surplus to serve the rest of the house" . The Planning Commission member indicated he saw the many cautions published to make people aware of unfounded claims for solar systems were ignored in the decision to approve the variances. In the same context, the question of whether the Commission has it in its power to accept a vote by proxy was fully explored. Mr. Sopcinski believes in instances where data has been provided at a previous hearing at which a member is present, that member's vote should be recognized if he or she is unable to attend the meeting at which a final vote is taken. Mr. Enrooth disagreed, saying the input provided during each meeting has to be utilized for an informed decision and Mr. Peterson indicated he doubted whether Roberts Rules of Order permit proxy votes . Mr. Jones insisted the Chairman goes out of his way to include any testimony given him by an absent member entered into each discussion and to assure their opinions are con- sidered in the decision making. The general consensus was that Mr. Berg should pursue the issue to a limited degree and report back to the Commission at a later date regarding proxy votes for the Commission. He was also requested to bring any further data regarding solar concepts he receives to the • attention of the Commission members. r