Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />SEPTEMBER 17, 1984 . <br />• A special meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. <br />by Chairman Al Stefanson. <br />Stefanson, Nilsen, Grittner, Trent-Sullivan, Black, and Chenoweth. PRESENT <br />Wallin, Olson, Mead, ABSENT <br />W. M. Bossard presented plans for a proposed 4-plex at 1899 W. Larpenteur, PLANS FOR <br />and requested variances where necessary. Chairman Stefanson explained that CONVERTING <br />the R-4 section of the zoning ordinance does not stipulate lot size or set- HOME TO 4- <br />backs,. however does provide for conditional uses as permitted in R-3, with PLEX AT <br />the stipulation that there be no more than 12 dwelling units per acre. He 1899 W. <br />then drew attention to the portion of the R-3 section relating to the con- LARPENTEUR, <br />version of a home to 1, 2, 3, or 4 dwellings, which would apply in this W.M. BOSSARI <br />instance. He also explained that in the final draft of the new ordinance <br />the information relating to set-backs was inadvertantly omitted from the <br />R-3 section, and will be corrected. <br />Mr. Bossard and the Commission discussed at length the problem of parking <br />space in both of the proposed plans. Member Nilsen stated that he and <br />Member Stefanson had measured the lot under discussion, had checked the <br />plat map, and determined that on the north the lot is only 60 feet wide, <br />not 65 feet as previusly thought. Various options were discussed, such <br />as parking on the Larpenteur side of .the existing building, allowing the <br />surfacing of a portion of the right-of-way for parking, decreasing the size <br />of parking slots, the possibility of constructing a three story building <br />• rather than two stores in order to decrease the. area covered by the building, <br />purchase of an adjoining lot, etc.. <br />Member Black summed up the variances which would be required as follows: <br />(1) lot size is below that needed (12,500 square feet required), (2) can <br />park no closer than 10 feet to the building, (3) width of driveway (32 ft. <br />limit) and (4) parking on the boulevard. He was of the opinion it would be <br />impossible to grant all the variances. <br />Since it was the concensus of opinion that the Commission was not in favor <br />of the submitted plans suggestions were made for changing the plans. Mr. <br />Bossard agreed to attempt to obtain an extension of his purchase agree- <br />went and to submit new plans on October 1, 1984. <br />Raymond Wirth, 1795 Pascal, presented a variance request to add two feet to VARIANCE FO] <br />the north side of his existing driveway which would be 3 feet from the lot EXTENSION O] <br />line. Following a short discussion Member Chenoweth moved, seconded by DRIVEWAY <br />Member. Black, that the variance be granted. Motion carried unanimously. RAYMON)WIRT] <br />1795 PASCAL <br />Chairman Stefanson briefly commented on .the possible amendment of the R-4 pOSSIBLE <br />and R-3 sections of the zoning ordinance. He felt that with the inclusion AMENDMENT 0] <br />of the R-3 portion which was inadvertantly deleted by the word processor that R3 & R-4 <br />amendment would not be necessary. The matter will be discussed further at PORTIONS OF <br />the October 1st meeting. <br />ZONING ORD. <br />Member Chenoweth moved, seconded by Member Trent-Sullivan, that the meeting <br />be adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. <br />~Gxir/vVV <br />J r W llin, Secretary <br />