Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />-2- <br /> <br />Rukavina asked Mr. Margolis if he would accept a time limit on the use of the <br />proposed building. <br /> <br />Mr. Margolis indicated he could accept a reasonable time limit. <br /> <br />Rukavina asked what the cost of the proposed building would be. <br /> <br />Margolis indicated the new building will cost approximately $10,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated the land is not zoned for commercial use, and so should <br />not be used as a contracting yard. The special use permit for horticultural use <br />in an R-l zone is not intended for such use. One solution may be to put the <br />equipment and building on a separate site, and keep only the horticultural use <br />at the 295 Larpenteur site. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren expressed concern that if the City allows too much of an investment <br />to be made in structures on the site, it will be very difficult to revert back to <br />an R-l use. <br /> <br />Berry asked why the planting for screening indicated on the August, 1977 plan had <br />not been completed. <br /> <br />Margolis indicated he would bring all screening into conformance with the plan. <br /> <br />Matson asked whether the equipment storage could be brought into conformance. <br /> <br />Margolis indicated he could try to do so. <br /> <br />Matson asked what Margolis will do in the future if his business becomes too <br />large for the site. <br /> <br />Margolis indicated he would move to a different location. <br /> <br />Matson asked why Margolis wants to spend $10,000 for a temporary building. <br /> <br />Margolis indicated the company currently has $3,000 - $5,000 of losses due to theft <br />each year. The security of the building would reduce those losses. <br /> <br />Matson asked what the building would be used for. <br /> <br />Margolis indicated the building would be used 1/2 for storage of tools and supplies, <br />and 1/2 for repair of equipment. <br /> <br />In response to a question from a resident of the area, Margolis indicated the west <br />side of the property had not been fenced because there is a la-foot drop-off at <br />the west edge of the property. <br /> <br />Matson indicated he felt there were two separate issues to be resolved; 1) rights <br />of the neighbors, and 2) permission to construct the building. <br />