PL PACKET 03181984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- 1 the plans were available if he had known what their specific concerns • 2 would be. 3 4 Commissioner' Jones reiterated that. he believed the Commission had 5 the right to see the missing plans.- for the landscaping and visual 6 view :of the building from the front and that the Minneapolis Park 7 Board should have had a representative at the meeting to discuss any 8 concerns the Commission might have . 9 10 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Franzese 11 to table the request for the new Gross Golf Course clubhouse because 12 of the absence of specific plans for front visual appearance land- 13 scaping, provision of a vandal proof structure and curb cut and 14 signage for the proposed building. 15 16 Voting on the motion: 17 18 Aye : Bjorklund, Franzese, Zawislak, Hansen and Jones . 19 20 Nay: Bowerman and Wagner. 21 22 Motion to table carried. 23 24 Following the -vote , the Manager told the Commissioners he would not 25 anticipate any change in the City of Minneapolis ' attitude towards a 26 major overlay or sealcoating job at this time , even though the 27 improved street would be a benefit to their property. He also told • 28 Commissioner Bjorklund that when the roadway is upgraded, it is ' 29 anticipated there would -be no -direct assessments to City taxpayers 30 since the costs of the improvement would be paid from state and federal 31 funds and assessment to the abutting property owners . 32 33 At 8 : 15 P.M. , the Chair Pro Tem opened the public hearing to consider 34 a petition for a variance for a 6 ft. wood fence at 2912-32nd Avenue N.E. 35 which had been mistakenly erected'- without a permit by the contractor 36 retained by the owner, Philip Hoversten, when he constructed another 37 addition to the property. The variance would allow the fence , which 38 is two feet taller than permitted by ordinance, to remain as constructed. 39 40 The Notice of Hearing, which had gone out to twenty-one property 41 owners within 200 feet of the subject property was read by Chair Pro 42 Tem Zawislak. No one present indicated failure to receive the notice 43 or objected to its content. The Manager reported receiving no calls 44 about the request and reiterated the points he had made in his 45 February lst memorandum that he perceives that fence - had not been 46 erected without the permit in an attempt to circumvent the ordinance 47 and since neither traffic nor visibility would be obstructed by the 48 fence , it would not appear the intent of the ordinance would be 49 greatly damaged by permitting the fence to remain. , 50 51 -Mr. Ho.versten told the Commissioner the fence, which only partially 52 protrudes- into his front yard; had been constructed at the same time • 53 another .addition was made to his home and failure to include that 54 Particular permit when the application was made for the other building 55 permits had been ari oversight ,on the part of the builder which had 56 since been corrected when the Public Works Director called it to his 57 attention.