My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 10151991
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1991
>
PL PACKET 10151991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:42:28 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:42:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1990-1991
SP Name
PL PACKET 10151991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> 2 SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991 <br /> 3 PAGE 6 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 1605 . 01 : Gondorchin noted that the definition of an alley <br /> 6 width was thirty feet . He. stated that there are streets in the <br /> 7 City which are narrower than that . Madden noted that smaller <br /> 8 dimensions could be considered as there are some alleys in the <br /> 9 City of Minneapolis which are fourteen feet . Gondorchin <br /> 10 suggested width may not need to be included in the definition <br /> 11 nor even be an issue. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 1605 . 01 : Franzese noted that "apartment" includes in its <br /> 14 definition that it is designed for use as an independent <br /> 15 residence. She observed that this conflicts with Chandler <br /> 16 Place. Madden stated that an occupant of Chandler Place must <br /> 17 have a doctor ' s statement saying they are capable of <br /> 18 independent living to reside : there. Murphy observed that an <br /> 19 apartment could also go with a multiple dwelling and could <br /> 20 actually be rental space, such as a mother-in-law apartment . <br /> 21 The City Manager advised this type of arrangement must be <br /> 22 labeled as "shared" rental property. Madden recalled there is <br /> 23 a property located on Foss Road which has rental property and <br /> 24 is considered a tri-plex . He inquired as to the zoning for <br /> 25 this building. Werenicz thought it was zoned R-2 . <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Gondorchin stated that duplexes and multiple family are used <br /> 28 interchangeably and should not be. These terms are defined on <br /> 29 page 4 of the Zoning Ordinance . <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Referring to the definition of a "deck" , Gondorchin stated he <br /> 32 feels this should be reviewed as decks are much more prevalent <br /> 33 since the ordinance was first written. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Murphy observed that "carport" was included in the former <br /> 36 version of the ordinance but is not included in the new <br /> 37 version . Carports were discussed and a number of the <br /> 38 Commissioners expressed their dislike for these structures . <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Brownell felt the difference between screening and fencing <br /> 41 should be included in the fencing section of the ordinance. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Murphy suggested that "dwelling" and "dwelling unit" be <br /> 44 consistent with the census . The City Manager noted that this <br /> 45 portion of the new ordinance is the same as the old ordinance, <br /> 46 but he will find out what criteria was used. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Werenicz stated that the definition of "garage sale" clearly <br /> 49 needs further clarification, noting this would not include any <br /> 50 items for sale on a given property which could constitute a <br /> 51 yard sale or an estate sale. He feels the present definition <br /> 52 is too narrow. <br /> 53 <br /> 54 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.