05-23-1989 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY SHERBURNE COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW A PROPOSED GARAGE TO ENCROACH 15 .5 FT. ON THE 50 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 30 FT. ENCROACHMENT ON THE 50 FT. EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO. COMMI SSIONER SCHROEDER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that staff would initiate an ordinance amendment changing the setback requirement for conditional uses for churches, public buildings, etc. because of the number of variance requests that we have had regarding these structures. 5. Conditional Use Permit Request by Sherburne County/P.H. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against this matter, Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PUBLIC FACILITY (COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BUILDING) IN A C-1 ZONE REFERENCING THE FINDINGS OF FACT BASED UPON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. THAT THE VARIANCE REQUIRED TO LOCATE THE BUILDING AS PROPOSED IS GRANTED. 2. THAT THE BACK PORTION OF THE LOT BE SEEDED WITH GRASS. STORAGE OF DIRT WILL BE PERMITTED ON THIS LOT. 3. THAT A 4 FT. AREA IN FRONT OF THE MAINTENANCE GARAGE IS LANDSCAPED WHERE IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH GARAGE DOORS ETC. 4. THAT THE SIGNAGE IS AS PER CITY CODE. 5. THAT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECEIVE A TWO YEAR REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS SET ON IT. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Variance Request/Tim Smith/P.H. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Steven Bjork explained that the applicant (Tim Smith) is requesting a 48 ft. encroachment on the 160 ft. minimum frontage requirement for property within the R-b zone. Mr. Bjork further noted that the administrative subdivision is contingent upon the variance request being granted. Therefore, staff felt it was only appropriate for the Planning Commission to also review the administrative subdivision request in conjunction with the variance request. The Planning Commission will not act on the administrative subdivision request, but may make recommendations to the Ci ty Counc i1 .