PL PACKET 06211994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Planning Commission O 2 May 17, 1994 3 Page 5 4 5 statutes cannot be met. Faust noted that the Commission has to comply with the Minnesota statutes; 6 no variance of this nature has occurred during his tenure on the Commission;there are no compelling 7 reasons for a 6 foot fence height rather than a 4 foot fence; a 4 foot fence would give the family 8 privacy and maintain safety for the fancily and others who use the street. 9 10 Commissioner Franzese stated that she feels a 6 foot fence would be safer than a 4 foot fence. She 11 stated that staff will have the opportunity to research this issue. Commissioner Makowske asked 12 Commissioner Faust if he would amend the motion so that if some legitimate route can be found 13 through the code,the City staff would be able to take that into consideration with regard to further 14 requests. Commissioner Faust stated that he would not accept that as an amendment, however, as 15 the variance process continues,and more information is received between now and the City Council 16 meeting, he assumes that that will happen. Chair Gondorchin asked for a vote on the motion. 17 18 Aye: Makowske, Bergstrom, Faust, Horst 19 Nay: Thompson, Franzese 20 21 Motion carried. 22 D_2 3 Chair Gondorchin suggested that Mr. Johnson attend the June 14th Council meeting. 4 25 Commissioner Makowske stepped down from the Commission at this time and left the room. Chair 26 Gondorchin announced the concept review for MAKO,Inc.. 27 28 Staff Report 29 30 Interim City Manager Hamer stated that the concept review being presented tonight is for the 31 MAKO, Inc. properties, represented by Mr. Chet Makowske. The property would need to be 32 rezoned from R2 to R4 for possible development. The owners want to be reasonably sure they will 33 be able to rezone before they proceed. In addition,there would be a need for variances for front and 34 back yard setbacks. 35 36 Commissioner Franzese inquired about the alley involved. Interim City Manger Hamer stated that 37 the alley is privately owned by the property owners, the City has never had control of that alley, 38 and that the alley would be removed. Another entrance/exit into the complex is part of the concept 39 review. Commissioner Horst asked why the request is to change the zoning to R4 and not R3. 40 Hamer explained that that was due to the population density of a townhouse structure. Hamer stated 41 that the original concept was for one structure,which would have been R4, but they are now asking 42 for townhouse zoning, which is R3. 43 D4 Chet Makowske spoke to the Commission,representing Don Makowske, Elaine Olson, who owns 45 the third property,and himself. He stated that he understands the Commission will not be actually