PL MINUTES 07171984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COPM4ISSION MINUTES • July 17, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 32 P.M. by Chairman Zawislak. Present for roll call: Bjorklund, Zawislak, Hansen, Wagner and Franzese. Absent: Bowerman and Jones . Also present: David Childs , City 'Manager. Prior to the motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission' s last .meeting, there ensued a discussion of the Commission's past minutes . After pointing out how well the minutes are written, the Commission members noted that there were several places in the June 19th minutes where the paraphrasing was not wrong,. but was_. - not 100% accurate. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to approve as submitted the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting held June 19 , 1984 . Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Franzese will report the July 17th Commission minutes to the Council at their July 24th meeting. Chairman Zawislak explained the procedure which would be followed that evening in conducting the public hearings listed on the agenda. At 7 : 40 P.M. , the Chairman opened the hearing on the request from Eugene and Patricia DeKanick, 3109 Wilson Street .N.E. , for a variance for a 3 foot sideyard setback, where a 5 foot setback is required by City Zoning Ordinance.. Mr. DeI:anick proposes to construct a 2 foot X 13 ' 6" addition to the south side of his home. The Chairman read the notice of hearing which had -been published July 3rd and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property. Andrew Smoka, 2607 Townview, indicated he failed to receive the notice, however, the City Manager informed him the City Ordinance provides the hearing is nevertheless valid, especially since Mr. Smoka was present that evening. The City Manager reviewed the DeKanick ' s request, noting the concept review was held at the Commission's last meeting, and then opened discussion by the applicant and neighbors , some of whom had indicated opposition to the DeKanick's proposal. Mrs . DeKanick proceeded to discuss what had transpired in her attempt to find the definition ofa bay. A bay would be allowed to come with- in 3.. feet of the p.r.operty line under Section 12 , Subd. 3. 2 of the • Zoning Ordinance. Mrs . DeKanick had first consulted her dictionary with little satisfaction and then spoke with a contractor. The con- tractor indicated the addition she desired to construct was termed a "bay" in his business . The contractor had contacted Mr. Childs and was told a variance was not needed for construction of a bay. Mrs.