HomeMy WebLinkAbout0812962.
3.
4.
e
o
Do
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
1V~ONDAY, August 12, 1996
7:00 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case 96-068 - Maris Stolcers, requesting a lake shore setback of 0 feet for the
construction of a deck to an existing cabin at 5395 Shore Trail NE.
Case 96-071 - Dave Smith, requesting an impervious surface coverage of 34% for the
construction of a garage and driveway for the property at 2950 Spring Lake Road.
Case 96-067 - Eagle Creek Villas request a 2 ! foot front yard variance for properties at
4170-4176 CJ Circle.
Case 96-061 - Consider Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit churches and day
care facilities in the C-l, Conservation District.
Case 96-062 - Consider Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit fences in County
road right-of-way.
Old Business:
Case 96- 055 - Eagle Creek Assisted Living Facility Hearing Continued.
New Business:
Gensmer Appeal Regarding Lot 7, Maple Park Shore Acres
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 L~~ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, MinnesotaP~3r/2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 12, 1996
1. Call to Order:
The August 12, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 7:00 p.m. Those prese_nt were Commissioners Vonhof, Kuykendall, Wuellner,
Stamson and Criego, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Acting City Engineer John
Wingard and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Wuellner Present
Kuykendall Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Present
Criego Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECONDED BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE
JULY 22, 1996, MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof, Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson.
MINUTES APPROVED.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case 96-068 - Maris Stolcers, requesting a lake shore setback of 0 feet for the
construction of a deck to an existing cabin at 5395 Shore Trail NE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report
dated August 12, 1996. Staff recommended denial of the application because the applicant
does not demonstrate a lack of hardship and has legal alternatives allowing reasonable use of
the property. The DNR recommendation was for denial.
Comments from the public:
Maris Stolcers, owner of the property, passed out a written response and photos regarding his
hardship. Stolcers explained how the proposed deck would be constructed on the 904 lake
level. He does not believe the DNR response is accurate. He feels what he is proposing is
not unique to other decks on the lake. Mr. Stolcers is willing to decrease the width of the
deck by one foot to 9' x 20'.
MN0m 1296.DOC PAGE 1
Andy Valdmanis, 5405 Shore Trail, a neighbor, stated he had no problem with the
applicant's proposal and feels it would enhance the property. There is no other place to put a
deck. He feels the DNR sends out form letters and do not come out and look at properties.
Comments from Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Applicant was well prepared with his comments on the hardship criteria.
· Clarification on date of report and Resolution.
· The variance hardship criteria are not met on 2 or 3 issues.
· There are other alternatives.
Kuykendall:
· Concurs with Commissioner Vonhof.
· Comparisons by applicant are not similar. The photos are not applicable.
· The DNR is correct - there are other alternatives. The deck can be detached and accomplish
the same as having a deck.
· Applicant can build on the slope.
· There are alternatives, it may not be convenient, but can be accomplished.
· Support staff recommendation of denial.
Stamson:
· Concurs with Commissioners.
· There are other alternatives.
· Not being able to build a deck is not a hardship.
· Agrees with staff:
Wuellner:
· Questioned applicant on the level of the home on the survey. Applicant responded the 904 is
at the concrete wall. The home did flood in 1965.
· The 904 high water mark was broke in 1993 and there was a lot of property damage.
· Possible damage with an ice-out.
· Concern for another high water year that could damage the home.
· There are other options. Criteria has not been met.
Criego:
No additional comments.
Mr. Stolcers feels the Commissioners would help him enhance his property.
Kuykendall explained the variance procedures and the problems with a home being on the
high water mark.
Criego suggested going to the City and find out what the platform deck requirements would
be for his property.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
26PC BASED ON THE FACT THE FOUR VARIANCE HARDSHIPS HAVE NOT BEEN
MET.
MI~081296.DOC PAGE 2
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
Case 96-071 - Dave Smith, requesting an impervious surface coverage of 34% for the
construction of a garage and driveway for the property at 2950 Spring Lake Road.
Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. Staff
recommends denial of the request due to the lack of demonstrated hardship. The DNR report
pointed out Minnesota Rules limits impervious surface to 25% of the lot in a shoreland
district while the City allows 30%.
Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, said the neighborhood lots are similar. The lots were
platted before the City Ordinances were in place. He also pointed out he lives on a sharp
comer where there is heavy traffic and is safer for him to back around in the driveway. The
garage was approved.
Jim Winegar, 2591 Spring Lake Road, a neighbor, explained Mr. Smith's situation. He
pointed out neighbors have had variances granted and Mr. Smith's request is consistent with
the neighborhood. The hardship is from the aspect from public safety. Many people speed
in the area. He is aware of the DNR criteria. Mr. Smith does have a home business and the
neighbors would appreciate him storing his equipment in a garage. Mr. Smith has worked
hard to improve the property and the proposed addition would further improve it.
Comments from Commissioners.
Stamson:
He understands the applicant and neighbors, but the standards have not been met.
The house and garage meet the livable use area. There are other legal options.
Wuellner:
· The property is substandard. The Commission approved the garage because it was consistent
with the neighborhood and would not detract from the properties in the area.
· If the Commission had this same information at the previous hearing the design would have
to be changed to meet the impervious surface standards.
· The garage area and driveway could be reduced. Impervious surface coverage is important.
· Kansier responded the City requires a paved driveway and a gravel driveway is still
impervious surface coverage.
Vonhof:
The City did not see there was an impervious surface issue and did not address it at the first
meeting.
Impervious surface is a big issue. If there is some way to reduce the size of the driveway
and get it down to 30% the Commission could look at that more favorably. The City
standard for impervious surface is 30%.
MN081296,DOC PAGE 3
Kuykendall:
· The impervious surface requirements are important. Would lean toward 25%. This is
unique.
· Need clarification of gravel for impervious surface.
· Redesign the driveway. Be creative to allow applicant a way to build his garage.
· Wingard said the wetland in the back of the property runs into marsh and the front yard into
Spring Lake.
· Kansier read the provisions from the ordinance.
· Suggest tabling to get staWs definition ora gravel driveway and look at another way of
looking at the situation.
Wuellner:
Hesitates to approve a variance because the Commission has never granted a 3 car garage as
a necessity.
Criego:
· If the facts were known at the first hearing, the Commissioners would have not allowed the
34% impervious surface.
· Commissioners would like to have the applicant build, but the impervious surface has to be
reduced.
· Does not meet the hardship with a 3 car garage.
· The Commissioners do not have to study the issues.
Ce
Mr. Winegar pointed out previous commissions allowed hammerhead driveways so a person
cannot back out into the traffic.
Mr. Smith said the garage was approved and he needs the room for his snowmobiles and
motorcycles. He has already gone ahead and spent money and reconstructed his yard under
the assumption this could be built. Mr. Smith feels there is nothing in the ordinance that
says he cannot have a gravel driveway.
Vonhof explained the variance granted was for garage setbacks with the understanding
applicant build the garage and stay within the impervious surface coverage. Applicant can
build the garage and make the driveway narrower.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO CONTINUE THE
MATTER TO THE NEXT MEETING WHEN CLARIFICATION BY STAFF CAN BE
MADE REGARDING GRAVEL REQUIREMENTS.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Wuellner, Stamson and Vonhof. Criego nay.
MOTION APPROVED.
Case 96-067 - Eagle Creek Villas request a 21 foot front yard variance for properties
at 4170-4176 CJ Circle.
Jane Kansier reviewed the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. Staff recommends approval
of the requested variance. Circumstances surrounding this property are somewhat unique
and the hardship criteria had been met.
MN081296. DOC PAGE 4
Attorney, Bryce Huemoeller, on behalf of Eagle Creek Villas explained the lot was part of a
townhouse project started in 1983. Eagle Creek Villas bought this one which was originally
approved for four units. The area around the unit is controlled by associations. The
applicant talked to the City and felt there were no variances needed. Applicant feels there is
a hardship and is eligible for a variance. They would like to use the property in a reasonable
and sensible manner building three units which would be better than the original four units.
The City affirmed it was a buildable property and applicant followed all of the procedures.
The property is unique and there are no other alternatives.
Comments by Commissioners:
Criego:
· The hardship is made.
· The developer had approval from City.
· Agree with staff recommendation to approve variance.
Vonhof:
· Concurs.
Hardships have been met. Builder is restricted by the constraints of the association and the
building envelope. Also there was an apparent error by the City at an undetermined time.
· The problem is not with the present property owners.
Kuykendail:
· Agree with hardships 1 and 3.
· This is more of a Planned Unit Development.
· No major problems.
Stamson:
Concur with the Commissioners.
The problems are mistakes made by the City and/or the problem with developing at different
times.
Wuellner:
· The building envelope is the same as it was in 1983.
· The application for the building permit showed the same site plan.
· The analysis to the PUD is correct.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
956-25PC.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:36 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:47 p.m.
MN0g 1296.DOC PAGE
Case 96-061 - Consider Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit churches and day
care facilities in the C-1, Conservation District.
The hearing was called to order at 8:47 p.m. and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public
in attendance.
Jane Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. This
request was initiated by staff in the interest of correcting an apparent error in the ordinance.
Staff recommended approval of the amendment.
Leanne Weyrauch, 16457 Five Hawks Avenue, stated she needs more information on the
subject and suggested including early childhood, family education and pre-school facilities
in the proposed amendment.
Comments from Commissioners:
Vonhof:
Parochial schools are permitted in the C 1 District but not churches.
Agrees to include and cover all the uses.
Kuykendall:
Questioned the role of the churches related to private enterprise and what can be allowed.
As presented, he is not opposed.
Wueilner:
· The intent is to change the zoning ordinance in the near future.
· Kansier stated the intent is to look at the entire ordinance within the next year.
· The City does not want to piece meal the ordinance.
Stamson:
It is a band aid issue until we can fix it later.
Concurs with staff.
Criego:
Need to specify what happens in the church?
Jane responded schools are permitted in the district and daycare and pre-school will fit into
the ordinance.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
ORDINANCE 96-xx TO ALLOW CHURCHES IN A C-I CONSERVATION ZONING
DISTRICT. ~
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
The public hearing was closed.
MIq081296.DOC PAGE 6
E. Case 96-062 - Consider Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit fences in County
road right-of-way.
The hearing was called to order and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance.
Jane Kansier presented the issues in the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. Staff
recommendation was for direction by Planning Commission to draft ordinance language. Scott
County Engineer Bradley Larson's written response was to oppose the ordinance as written and
recommended "the ordinance specify that no fences shall be placed within the right-of-way of
Prior Lake streets."
Criego questioned the City's authority for granting this ordinance change.
Comments by the public:
Russell Lawrence, 16493 Five Hawks Avenue, said the County and State ditches have certain
allowable recreational vehicles. Putting up a fence in the right-of-way would create a problem.
Also plowing for the County could be a problem depending on where the fence was located. He
also pointed out with the utilities buried in the area the fence would have to have pretty good size
footings.
Don Kotula, 14031 Harbor View NE, distributed pictures of the area. His issue is the road noise
with the growing traffic. The fence would stop noise and traffic. He said he was not anti-
recreational vehicles but they drive on their propen'y. It would not make a difference if the fence
was constructed further back on the association property. The County would not approve the
fence.
Comments by Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The issue is whether the City can control, or should control, fencing in County right-of-way.
· The State and County can construct whatever they want no matter what the City says.
· As it is written now the City has some say or at least some negotiating stance with a private
citizen coming in to build something. By changing the ordinance the City loses the ability to
negotiate.
· By changing the ordinance the City would lose the ability to work with other governments.
· Ordinance is fine the way it is written.
Wuellner:
· Does the City want an opinion on this and try to regulate right-of-way on a county road?
· The City should have great deal to say hbout this.
· There is no good argument for putting a fence in a right-of-way.
Vonhof:
· Agree with comments.
· Ordinance should remain.
· State has a tendency to turn roads over to local authority.
This will have an impact down the line.
· Keep right-of-ways open.
MN081296. DOC PAGE7
Kuykendall:
· In favor of not changing the ordinance as it exists.
· The City should not construct private structures on public facilities,
· Question for planning in the comprehensive level. Suggest revising our highway zones and
be creative. There can be certain restrictions.
· Call it a sound barrier as opposed to a fence.
· The highway authority should, consider a sound barrier if it meets their standards.
· Noise can be controlled by vegetation.
· Check with the Dept. of Transportation on vegetation.
· Fence your own property for trespassers.
Criego:
· Agrees.
· Do not change ordinance.
· Noise is a problem on County Road 42.
· Rather than change the ordinance there might be a variance caused by the noise. The City
could look at a variance. It might give the Harbor the latitude with the County.
Open discussion:
· This problem is the same on Highway 13.
· Residents in the Harbor will finance this fence.
· A fence does not belong out there.
· The Commissioners do not need to study the issues. A qualified person should look at the
issue.
· County will not approve this. State understands these kinds of issues.
· Do not change ordinance but allow some positive motion to go to the County.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THE REQUEST BE DENIED AND
NO CHANGE TAKE PLACE AT THIS TIME IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Vonhof, Criego, Stamson and Wuellner. MOTION
CARRIED.
Kuykendall suggested staff look at the other cities and related issues before a variance is
considered.
Kansier explained the use variances are illegal in the State of Minnesota, the City can grant
height and location, not uses.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO REVIEW PRACTICES ON
STATE, COUNTY AND CITY ROADS FOR NOISE CONTROL BOTH ON AND OFF
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
Open Discussion:
· The issue is with the applicant, not the City to investigate. The fence is a county project.
AMENDMENT BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, REQUEST STAFF TO LOOK
INTO THE PRACTICES OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES (MUNICIPAL,
MN081296.DOC PAGE 8
COUNTY, AS WELL AS THE STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION) TO DETERMINE
HOW THEY ARE ADDRESSING THE SAME ISSUE. INCORPORATE OTHER WAYS OF
ACCOMPLISHING THE OBJECTIVES. IN ADDITION INVESTIGATE IF APPLICANT
CAN REQUEST A VARIANCE TO PUT IN A NOISE ENBANKMENT ON COUNTY
PROPERTY.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Vonhof, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION
CARRIED. ,-
The public hearing is closed.
5. Old Business:
Case 96- 055 - Eagle Creek Assisted Living Facility Hearing Continued.
Kansier reviewed issues from the last meeting and addressed the following issues: 1) The City
Attorney determined the applicant should amend the PUD; 2 & 3) Waterline and traffic issues -
Engineering Memo dated August 7, 1996; 4) Trail plan for the area; 5) Overflow parking; 6)
Definition of assisted living; and 7) Modifications to Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommended approval of the Schematic Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan
amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and modification of the
plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue.
Wingard summarized the water system. Five Hawks Avenue would feed of an 8" line. It would
improve the fire protection. The pressure would increase and meet requirements.
Wingard also said the extension of Five Hawks Avenue through the site would require a
considerable amount of disturbance through the area. If not extended through this site, there will
be minimal impacts to the City's overall transportation system. The streets will still be able to
function without being congested.
Overflow parking would be beneficial for the people who want to use the trail system. Suggest
using off street parking. Kansier said Planning staff feels the 33 spaces is not enough. Ordinance
requires 1 parking place for each unit- 61 spaces. Nursing homes generally generate traffic at .2
trips per day. This facility will be more active.
Comments from the public:
Wilt Berger, architect for Eagle Creek Villas, presented the revised parking area showing
additional flat areas that can be expanded to parking. The average age of residents would be 80
to 85 years old whose parking needs are reduced by 50%. Parking is directly correlated with the
age of the residents. This parking proposal maintains as much natural vegetation as possible on
site. The second issue was to deal with the trail system. Mr. Berger said the developer does not
have a problem with constructing a trail through the property.
Wingard commented on the waterline along the eastern side of the property. Cares Street would
have to be torn up. The City would also have to go through a wetland.
bIN081296.DOC PAGE 9
Mr. Huemoeller, representing the developer, urged the Commission to approve Alternative #2 of
the Staff Report. He feels when the development was originally proposed, Cates Street had only
one entrance and it was necessary for Five Hawks Avenue to go through. Now there are other
outlets. There are environmental problems connecting the road. Priorwood Street would help
with the traffic congestion. The Comprehensive Plan does not affect this project. Connecting
the road is unrelated to this project. The cost should not come from the developer. The
engineering department does not see a need for it as well as the neighbors.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Wuellner:
· The verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan quoted earlier was written prior to the knowledge of
the Planning Commission that Eagle Creek Villas was coming.
· The street should not go through but would push strongly for a trail. Take advantage of the
significant environmental aspects of the property.
· Would not required the developer to make right-of-way for Five Hawks available to the City
in any form.
· It is not reasonable for the Planning Commission to find a place for the watermain to go
through. The developer can solve the problems with engineering.
· Strong recommendation of Alternative #2 in the Staff Report.
Stamson:
· Extension of Five Hawks is a bad idea.
· Strongly feel a trail should go through.
· The watermain is a wash cost wise. Move to the east with the least environmental impact.
· Parking is better to err on too much rather than not enough.
· Pollution and runoff control is an issue. Deal with easily before hand. Ifapplican~ is tacking
on parking later - reconstruction would have to be done. Parking should be more than .5
space.
· Would like to see more detail on the parking.
· Recommending Alternative #2 of the Staff Report.
Vonhof:
· Recommendation to City Council on the assisted living facility is appropriate on this site.
· Amend Comprehensive Plan to deal with the density.
· Amend Comprehensive Plan on completion of Five Hawks Avenue. It should not be
connected. Would rather see a trail.
· The issue of definition of assisted living is addressed better through the PUD process and
developer rather than an amendment definition to the Comprehensive Plan.
· Parking should be I per unit. Should be done at this time, more difficult to do later.
Ordinance says 1 per unit.
· Support of Recommendation #2 of the Staff Report with addition of amendments.
Kuykendali:
· Support the 1.0 parking. Important to do it now and do it right - have a quality facility.
· Meet the standards of our Comprehensive Plan.
· Street extension should be pedestrian right-of-way but should be a public right-of-way.
· The City Engineer has to decide the best watermain condition.
MN081296.DOC PAGEIO
· The Planning Commission does not have to modify the Comprehensive Plan and still
connect the neighborhoods.
· Pedestrian traffic is allowed. It is also necessary to allow the area for emergency vehicles.
· These things are important to the public on both sides of this development. From a cost
standpoint compared to other developments, this is a very inexpensive development. So
cost-wise it is in the public interest to maintain as a public facility.
· Change density as recommended.
· Let the issues be determined by engineers.
· The only variance he suggested to consider is the trade-offwhere trees have to be removed.
Criego:
· Berger addressed the parking ratio.
· Concurs with the rest of the Commissioners.
Doris Wilker, 16493 Five Hawks Avenue, stated the development is a wonderful concept but she
works in this area and questioned the need for 61 parking spaces. She has more ora concern for
getting buses and private cars in and out of the area. It is possible down the road other people
will be using this facility. People with mental health issues, chemical dependency issues and
also developmental disabilities. If the developer wants the residents of the facility to be 55 years
or older it should be addressed. Ms. Wilker's other concern is for the pathway. The paths are
great but go nowhere - there are no connecting sidewalks. The residents should be included with
these trails. She lives on Five Hawks and resents having to pay for a sidewalk.
Wingard showed the extension between Five Hawks. Trails are stubbed into streets in other
developments.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE SCHEMATIC PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
THERE SHOULD BE NO ROAD EXTENSION OF FIVE HAWKS AVENUE. AMEND THE
PLAN TO MAKE IT CLEAR THE CONNECTION IS PUBLIC NON-MOTORIZED
PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH ORIENTED SPECIFIC TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC TRAIL; TRAIL ACROSS THE CREEK; AND A TRAIL
PLANNED OUT WITH THE SCHOOL, CITY AND DEVELOPER.
ADEQUATE PARKING BE PROVIDED - I PER UNIT. CONSTRUCTED NOW, NOT
LATER.
THE WATERLINE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED. THE EXACT LOCATION WILL BE
DISCUSSED AT THE PLATTING STAGE OR THE MORE SPECIFIC DEVELOPING
STAGE. CRITERIA IS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND STILL
PROVIDE ADEQUATE PRESSURE.
MODIFY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DENSITY FOR TI-tiS PARTICULAR PIECE OF
PROPERTY AND DELETE FIVE HAWKS AVENUE CONNECTION STATEMENT.
MODIFY THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR IT.
DEVELOPER IDENTIFY THE USERS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY.
MN081296.DOC PAGEI I
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Stamson, Kuykendall and Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Gensmer Appeal Regarding Lot 7, Maple Park Shore Acres
Jane Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the ordinance.
Staff received a letter dated June 17, 1996 sent in response to a complaint dockage was being
rented to persons who did not live in the subdivision in which the dockage was located. Staff
investigated on May 29, and noted two docks were located on the subject property and three
boats were moored at the two docks. This was verified by staff on June 19, following mailing of
the notice of violation. Upon receipt of the appeal, staff again visited the site and noted two
docks with four boats moored at the docks.
Section 5-5-3 of the ordinance deals with permitted and conditional uses. This section was cited
in the belief that rental of dock space is one of the primary activities associated with marinas and
the respondent states they are leasing dock space. Marinas are not a permitted use in the R-1
District.
Bryce Huemoeller, the attorney representing respondent was present. His position was the plat
of Maple Park Shores Acres was platted years ago and predates the ordinance by 40 years. This
is not a common beach area. It is a lot being rented to 4 people to have short term seasonal
docks in the water that comply with DNR regulations. The provision of the ordinanc6s uses the
word "may" be developed..." which leaves it optional. The owner's position is he has a lease
that complies. It is not a violation of the ordinance. The lot is used for beach activities.
Comments from Commissioners:
Kuykendail:
· Agrees with Staff's interpretation for reasons stated in their staff report.
· Mentioned DNR water regulations.
Vonhof:
· Agree it is not a commerical marina but it runs against the intent of the ordinance.
· There is no specific language.
MN0$1296.DOC PAGEI 2
Stamson:
· Principal use is residential and this area is zoned residential but it is not a buildable lot.
does not apply to Section 5-4-1. Primary use is leasing out dock space.
· Applicant can deed back to the homeowners and they can use it.
It
Wuellner:
· Is for alternative #2 of the Staff Report and accept the appeal for dock rental.
· Not convinced it is not a prohibited use. It is a reasonable use if you can not live on it.
Criego:
· It is not intended to lease out slips.
· This is a R1 zone.
· It is not a permitted use.
· Agree with Staff recommendation.
Open discussion comments:
· The owner of the property can have a slip.
· This is a commerical issue. Someone is making money.
· Go through the conditional use process.
· It is not addressed in our zoning.
· It is a plotted lot and has to have some use.
· It is not in compliance.
Commissioner Stamson read Section 9, page 3, subparagraph 9.2 B 4 of the Shoreland
Ordinance which states:
4. "Prohibited Uses. Any uses which are not permitted or conditional uses as regulated by
the applicable zoning district underlying this Shoreland District as indicated on the official
Zoning Map of the City."
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION AND CITE SECTION 9.2 B 4.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego, nays by Wuellner and Vonhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Lake tour scheduled for Tuesday, August 20, at 4:00 p.m.
MN081296.DOC PAGEI 3
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:09 p.m.
Don Rye Connie Carlson
Director of Planning Recording Secretary
MN0~ 1296.DOC PAGEI 4