HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Zoning Ordinance Amend
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JUNE 5, 2000
9A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR 0 r
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 00# APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF A BUILDING FACE
AND THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR
STRUCTURES WITH WALLS EXCEEDING 40 FEET IN
LENGTH IN THE RS, R-l, R-2 AND R-3 DISTRICTS (Case File
#00-035)
History: The Zoning Ordinance contains a provision requiring an
additional side yard setback in Residential Districts when the building
wall exceeds 40' in length. This provisions reads as follows:
The width of the side yard abutting a building wall shall be increased
2 inches for each 1 foot the length of the wall of the building exceeds
40 feet. For the purpose of this subsection, a wall includes any
building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting the
side lot line of a lot.
The building wall, or building face, is defined as:
That portion of the exterior wall of a structure which shall lie in a
vertical plane. One face shall be terminated by an exterior angle of at
least 210 degrees framed by two exterior walls each being at least 18
feet in length or a curved portion of such exterior wall which shall
have a central angle of 30 degrees or more.
The purpose ofthe additional setback requirement is to reduce the
effect of the bulk of a long wall on the adjacent property. This is
especially important on nonconforming lots, where the side yard
setback may be reduced to 5 feet. The Planning Commission has
reviewed a number of variance requests to this provision since May 1,
1999 (4 total requests). In addition, a number of building permit
applications have been revised to meet the required setback. Because
162o=cp~ggf~O~!~~<A~~ni~'g~-~r160rO~11C~:<1efinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / FaxP(~I2) 447-4245
/I'\i EQL'/lL OPPOETl:'\iITY E:VIPLOYER
TIT' I
of these requests, the Planning Commission initiated this amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance.
Current Circumstances: The Planning Commission discussed this
issue at some length over the last several months. The current Zoning
Ordinance includes a provision requiring an additional side yard
setback in Residential Districts when the building wall exceeds 40' in
length. The purpose of the additional setback requirement is to reduce
the effect of the bulk of a long wall on the adjacent property. This is
especially important on nonconforming lots, where the side yard
setback may be reduced to 5 feet. Ultimately, the Commission
determined there is a need to limit the building length, or to provide a
break in the building wall. The purpose of this is to limit the bulk of a
long building wall on the adjacent property. However, the
Commission also felt the current requirements are too restrictive.
In order to relax the current requirements and to still accomplish the
above objective, the following amendments to the definition of
"building face" and to the setback requirement are proposed.
The staff recommends the definition of a "building face" be changed
as shown below. The last sentence is deleted. The addition to the
definition defines the angle necessary to constitute a break in the wall.
It does not include a minimum length of this break.
Building Face. That portion of the exterior wall of a structure which
shall lie in a vertical plane. One face shall be terminated B)' an
exteri$r angle sf at lea.st 2! 9 dagroes fNl1'I'Wd by tW$ cxtari$r walls
eaeh baing at least! 8 feet in length $Y a cHrved p$r/f$n $,/' sHeh
cxtori$r wall which shall ha'.'e a central angle $f 39 dcgroe5 $r m$r-c.
Anv break in a building face shall be defined bv an exterior angle Q,[
at least 210 degrees or a curved portion Q,[ such exterior wall which
shall have a central angle Qf 30 degrees or more.
The language requiring an additional setback for walls greater than 40'
in length is included in the RS, R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts. The staff
suggests this language be changed to increase the initial length of a
building face to 50 feet before an increased setback is required. An
additional setback is applied only if there is no break in the wall. This
language would read as follows:
The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be
increased 2 inches for each 1 foot the length of the wall $f the building
!1!1ll1 exceeds 4{) S.Jl.feet. The additional setback will not be applied if
there is a break in the building wall equal to 10% Q,[the entire length
of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a wall includes any
I: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-035\0003 See.doe
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting the
side lot line of a lot.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing
on May 8, 2000. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the proposed amendment. Copies of the minutes of the Planning
Commission meetings at which this issue was discussed are attached to
this report.
The Issues: The City Council must make a decision whether to amend
the ordinance based on the following criteria:
. There is a public need for the amendment; or
. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of
the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted
plans or policies of the City; or
. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or
federal requirements.
The purpose ofthe additional setback is to reduce the impact of a long,
unbroken building wall on the adjacent property. The proposed
amendment accomplishes this objective. The specific language is
included in the attached ordinance.
This amendment would have had some impact on the requested
variances. In some cases, the requests involved additions to existing
structures. These may have required variances regardless of the
change in the language. In the requests involving new houses, there
could have been simple redesign solutions which may have eliminated
the need for a variance.
Conclusion: Both the Planning Commission and the staff recommend
approval ofthis amendment.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Ordinance 00- XX approving the proposed amendment as
recommended.
2. Deny Ordinance GO-XX.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
The staff recommends Alternative # I. A motion and second to adopt
Ordinance 00- XX approving the amendment as recommended by the
Planning Commission. Approval of this ordinance requires a 4/5 vote
of the Council.
I: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-035\00035ee.doc
! ..". "'1"f"
Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 00- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400, 1102.306, 1102.405,
1102.505, AND 1102.605 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1101.400 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Building Face. That portion of the exterior wall of a stntcture which shall lie in a
vertical plane. o,'le face sha!l Be !erminatcd by an exterior angle of at feast 2! 0
degrees framed by two exterior waYs each being fJ.t least 18 feet in length er a curved
portion of such c.-.aerier .....all which shall ha'..e a centra! angle of 30 degrecs or morc.
Anv break in a building face shall be defined bv an e.xterior angle of at least 210
degrees or a curved portion of such exterior wall which shall have a central angle of
30 degrees or more.
2. Section 1102.306 (6) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2
inches for each 1 foot the length of the I':all ef the building wall exceeds 4{) SJJ. feet.
The additional setback will not be aoolied if there is a break in the building wall
equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a
wall includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting
the side lot line of a lot.
3. Section 1102.405 (6) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2
inches for each 1 foot the length of the wa.ll ef thc building wall exceeds 4() S.Jl. feet.
The additional setback will not be allplied if there is a break in the building wall
equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a
wall includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting
the side lot line of a lot.
4. Section 1102.505 (4) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2
inches for each 1 foot the length of the wall 8.Jl'the building wall exceeds 4() SJl feet.
The additional setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall
equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a
I:\OOtiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-035\ordOOxx.doc PAGE 1
lb200 Eo]!e Creek :;'.e SE. Prior Lake. Minnesota 5537:2-1714 / Ph !b12) 4-1-7-42')(j ,/ Fc::.; :612i 447--J.2-1-~,
-\', :f)i ',-\L o~;'~'c)r,':'! -';:':-'~' [\lr)LU
I II
wall includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting
the side lot line of a lot.
5. Section 1102.605 (6) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2
inches for each 1 foot the length of the wall of the building wall exceeds 4{) S1l. feet.
The additional setback will not be aoplied if there is a break ill the building wall
equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a
wall includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting
the side lot line of a lot.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 5th day of June, 2000.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 10th day of June, 2000.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1: \00 fi I es \OOordamd\zon i ng\OO-O 3 5\ordOO xx. d DC
PAGE 2
Planning Commission Minutes
April 10.. 2000
. Is language from ode! Ordinance the same as the language from the Zoning
Ordinance? The Ci should consider adding l~uage clarifying that no other
encroachments are allo ~!4rp.1 /
. Rye noted that would be c.~r. The ~en~ral rule is - ifit is not permitted, it is
M:::~:' STAMSON, SEj::OND~/: VONHOF, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREP ARE AN AMENDMENT TO TH ONING ORDINANCE ADDING THE
SENTENCE "NO OTJIER ENCROACH ~TS ARE PERMITTED TO SECTION
1104.303 BLUFF IMPACT ZONE." "
/"
Vote taken ~ed ayes by all. MOTION C~"
~
B.
Discussion of Additional Setback Requirements for Building Walls
Exceeding 40' in length.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated April 10, 2000, in file
in the office of the City Planner.
On February 28,2000, and again on March 13,2000, the Planning Commission discussed
several alternatives to this requirement. The Planning Commission suggested the
following requirements be included in an ordinance:
. Substandard lots: One wall at 40 feet, one wall at 60 feet, one side the sum of 10
feet and the other side between 40 and 60 feet with a 1 foot offset.
. Standard lots: Remain two 40 foot walls, with the sum of 10 foot breaks.
The staff attempted to write an ordinance including the suggested language. Under the
proposed approach, the ordinance becomes even more complicated and confusing, and is
thus very difficult to apply and enforce. In staffs opinion, the change to the ordinance
should provide a simpler approach.
The Planning Commission's previous discussion has suggested a need to limit the
building length, or to provide a break in the building wall. The purpose of this is to limit
the bulk of a long building wall on the adjacent property. In order to accomplish this
objective and still provide some setback relief, the staff suggested the following
approach:
. Increase the initial length of a building wall to 50 feet before an increased
setback is required. If the building face exceeds 50' without a break, the setback
must be increased 2 inches for each additional foot of building wall.
. The additional setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall
equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For example, a 70' long wall
requires a 7' break.
1:\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\nm041000.doe
3
I "
Planning Commission Minutes
April 10.. 2000
This approach will be simpler to understand and administer. It also accomplishes the
objectives ofthe original language. Finally, this language would apply to all lots.
This approach would require an amendment to the setback provisions of the ordinance, as
well as to the definition of a building face. These amendments require a public hearing
before the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council.
Commissioner Comments:
Stamson:
· This approach makes sense. It is simpler and accomplishes the objectives.
V onhof:
. Agreed this is a simpler approach.
Atwood:
. Likes the idea it applies to standard as well as substandard lots.
Rye pointed out it is an equal protection issue.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIDE
YARD SETBACKS FOR WALLS GREATER THAN 40 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
There was no new business.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye distributed a handout announcing the April 25, meeting on the downtown
redevelopment plan. Discussion will center on a composite plan. The idea is to get some
final direction.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn041 OOO.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13. 2000
. Questioned staff if the setback measurement is from the eaves or foundation. Kansier
respon from the foundation but there is a provision in)he ordinance stating how
wide the 0 er-hang can be. Specifically, it cannot ~~ ~ than 5 feet from the lot line.
. Supported to variance, as that is what was intencte<j
Criego: /
. Abstained. /
/
Cramer: /
. Originally felt there was hardship but fer going out to the site found a more
general concern with the Sl e yard setbacks of the adjacent home to the north.
I
· Horsman explained the neigh oring sjde yard setbacks and future potential problems.
. Concern not warranted. Supp ed )he request.
Vonho~ I
. Concurred with Stamson that this w
· The hardship criteria W7am t.
Atwood:
. No comment.
/
MOTION BY STAMS9N, SECOND BY VONHO DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREP ARE A RESOL nON ADDRESSING THE TBACKS REQUESTED BY
APPLICANT.
MOTION C ED.
5. ~ld usiness: \
Rye sug sted hearing Item B before Item A because most of the: au~ce was present
for that tem B. The Commissioners agreed. Item B was heard first - see page 5.
Criego abstained.
I~ A.
Discuss setback requirements for building walls greater than 40 feet.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 13, 2000,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
On February 28,2000, the Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance
provision requiring an additional side yard setback in Residential Districts when the
building wall exceeds 40' in length. The purpose of the additional setback requirement is
to reduce the effect ofthe bulk of a long wall on the adjacent property. This is especially
important on nonconforming lots, where the side yard setback may be reduced to 5 feet.
The Planning Commission discussed several alternatives to this requirement.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpemin\mn031300.doe
3
111
II
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
Several examples of houses exceeding the 40' wall length were discussed. The examples
included both substandard and conventional lots. The plans also presented different
breaks in the building, as well as continuous walls.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Questioned staffs recommendation. Kansier said staff really does not have one. The
City is hearing from builders who are concerned. It does not appear to be a problem
with the newer lots. It is a problem on the substandard lots. Houses are getting
bigger, people are building setback to setback. Staff is willing to work with whatever
the Commission feels is appropriate.
. Felt 50, 60 and 70 feet is too long. There has to be some level of break.
. Retain 18 feet, but have it in multiple phases. A house would look more reasonable
with multiple breaks as opposed to one big break.
. It seems to be needed on the garage side.
Stamson:
. Clarified the 18 foot break. Kansier said the reason for the provision was to reduce
the mass on the adjacent property.
. The intent was not to cut down the square footage.
. 18 feet might still be a problem with a smaller house.
. Suggested setting the standard back. Do not have an alley look.
. The idea is to break up the wall.
V onhof:
. Look at the 50 foot lots in the Shoreland District and setbacks.
. 50 feet is more workable than 40 feet.
. The City is running into this standard more often. A standard is needed so the are no
huge walls.
Chris Deanovic, 16091 Northwood Road, agreed with the assessment that it appears most
of the problems are the long walls on the smaller lots. The standard lots will be okay to
work with. Deanovic suggested staying focused on the lake lots which seem to have
more problems. He felt 80 percent ofthe time the City will be in the 40 to 50 foot range.
Length is all that is left on the 50 foot lots after setbacks. Keep the break around a 4 or 5
foot break or multiple.
Cramer:
. Reduce to 15 feet for breaks.
. Strongly want to keep this to substandard lots and not apply to standard lots.
. It might complicate enforcement. But it is a huge issue on the substandards.
. Would like to see the staggering for all lots, but to a greater degree to substandard.
1 :\OOfi les\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn031300.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13. 2000
V onhof:
. The Commission has be strong on impervious surface. Something is going to have to
gIve.
Rye brought up another approach. Ifthe total distance front to back of the building is 40
to 50 feet, the City could require a particular dimension in breaks. It could be done in a 5
and 3 or 4's or 6 and a 2. Then for 50 to 60 foot length a requirement could be a little
greater. So that the longer the wall require cumulatively more offsets or breaks. Apply to
all lots.
After a discussion, the Commissioners felt a 20% break in the length of the building
would be appropriate. The break would be 20% of the front (widest) width of the house.
Kansier gave examples ofthe breaks.
Chris Deanovic said the building code separates between the standard lots and
substandard lots and questioned if there is much of a problem with lake lots. V onhof
responded there was and the potential is there for problems. The City does not want long
walls in a crowded area. Deanovic said in his experience, it would be better to apply the
requirement after 60 feet.
Rye said ideally ordinances should be consistent for all lots.
Criego:
. Agreed with Rye's idea to put the sum of either side on a regular standard lot.
. On a substandard lot, propose 10 feet on one side. If there is a garage attached on the
side that is closest, it would have a foot or two offset.
V onhof:
. Suggested to add at least one wall on a substandard lot can be allowed up to 50 feet.
Kelly Murray, Wensmann Homes, pointed out a tuck-under garage cannot be shifted.
Stamson:
. Set a standard for what the break has to be. Forty feet with one wall on substandard
lots be 60 feet and then come up with a reasonable number for what the break has to
be.
After discussion, Commissioner Cramer summed up the requirements:
. Substandard lots: One wall at 40 feet, one wall at 60 feet, one side the sum of 10
feet and the other side between 40 and 60 feet with a 1 foot offset.
. Standard lots: Remain two 40 foot walls, with the sum of 10 foot breaks.
1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm031300.doc
5
]I 11
Planning Commission Minutes
March J 3. 2000
Kansier said they will work up the language and come back to the Commissioners.
6. New Business: /
A. cas~99-095 Review request to vaeate lake aeeess ~,: right-of-way for
Kneafsey's St\et adjacent to Lots 4 through 15, Kneafsey;s Cove.
Planning coor~~or Jane Kansier preseuted the Planniugleporl dated March 13, 2000,
on file in the office ,of the Planning Department. /
I
I
Kneafsey's Cove was latted in September 1946 dedidting the roadways and waterfront
to the public including 30-foot wide roadway located between Lots 5 and 6. In
September, 1999, the Ci received a petition from the property owners of Lots 5 and 6,
William and Margaret Rig~eimer and James and 1')~cy Samec, requesting the vacation
of a 30-foot wide lake acce~ and roadway locate? along the waterfront between Lots 5
and 6. The reason for this p;'tion was to allow the adjacent owners to assume ownership
for maintenance purposes and 0 reduce a hazadtous vehicle situation with respect to
parking and vehicles entering tl1~ake. /
Ou December 13, 1999, the applic~ts requited tbis item be deferred to allow the
petitioners to amend the original pet~ion to include the entire waterfront. On February 9,
2000, the City received an amended.a~plication signed by Steven and Linda Erickson
(Lots 12 and 13), Raymond and KathrYi Cornforth (Lots 14 and 15) and C. Richard and
Patricia Kuykendall (Lots 9 and 10), it! ct~dition to the original petitioners, William and
Margaret Righeimer and James and 1;lancy,Samec. These petitioners constitute more than
50% of the property owners, so the petition\ncludes the entire waterfront adjacent to Lots
4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove. / \
\
. \
, \
Staff recommended approval o(ihe vacation of the roadway and waterfront as it is
consistent with the recommend~tions in the Lake Access Study adopted by the City
C .. / \
ouncl1 In 1995. / \.
I '
I '.
The Department of Natural' Resources and Assistant At~rney General's office objected to
the proposed vacation cit~g existing and future limited access opportunities on Prior
Lak~ / \
I \
I \
Criego: / \
. Questioned if thy' property was steep. Kansier said it was not. Actually it was
relatively flat. / \
. Questioned if(he property started at the 904. Kansier said at th~ time this area was
platted the 9 4 had not been established as the ordinary high wat~ mark. There is no
indication fthe 904. \
. Question Q what the distance would be at the narrowest point. Kan~er said it was
probabl 25 to 30 feet. But it may not necessary reflect the 904.
1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpemin\mn031300.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
. No pro em with the 50% opacity. It is reasonable.
. The inten . on was decorative fencing.
. Does not w t to allow chain-link fences in the front y/
Cramer: /
. Remembers this ~cussion regarding decorativ~ences.
· Agreed with stafftHsence should remain at f1'eet for safety reasons.
. 50% opacity is okay. /
Kansier suggested making a r omme~L excluding chain-Ii
fence is not a decorative fence. ~~ language stating front
decorative fences such as picket fe ces, split rail fences, iro
Staff can bring the recommendJrton ~e City C~~ . ~J.
MOTION BY CRAME , SECOND BY ST~ON' "E.E
COUNCIL INCRE THE FENCE OP AC Y TO 50%>
THE CITY COD . IN ADDITION HA V T DEFINE
Vote taken iuLed ayes by all. MOTIO
This itLu go before the C' ouncil on
>k'
D.
ections 1101.400, 1102.306,
and 11 01.~j of the Zoning Ordinance relating
e;required sideyard setback for
109 et in length if the RS, R-l, R-2 and R-3
ack encroachments to the required lakeshore and
;-'
Pl~ing Coordinator Ja;1: ansier presented the Planning Report dated May 8, 2000, on
filelli'; office of the CitM,:Planner.
his p'lic hearing is to consider two amendments to the Zoning
endment pertains to the required setback for walls greater than
40' in length in.v S, R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts. This amendment also includes a
revision to the definition of a building wall. This amendment was initiated by the
Planning Commission in response to several variance requests to the setback requirement.
The second amendment clarifies the allowed encroachments into the required lakeshore
and bluff setback requirements. This amendment was also initiated by the Planning
Commission in response to an appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator
denying an encroachment into the bluff setback.
Comments from the Public:
1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn050800.doe
8
I IT
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8. 2000
Marv Mirsch, seasonal home of 15432 Red Oaks, stated his encroachment appeal was
denied and pointed out the City's 75 foot lake setback versus the DNR's 50 foot setback.
With the 25 foot bluff setback added to the lake shore setback it makes the setback at least
75 feet. Mirsch explained the encroachment ordinance definitions and stipulations stating
this affects 950 parcels around the lake. Mirsch felt by the way the ordinance was
written, there would be no encroachments in the yards such as flood or sec~~~(l!~hts,
flag poles, birdbaths or other ornamental features. He also felt by apprgyjIfgfliisChange,
Prior L~e wil~ hav~ the mos~ res~rictive ordinance in the State of~$P-;~~\~e' p.rob~bly
the Nation. MIrsch IS protestmg Items 7 and 8 the most becauseqiltHe dIS" matIon to
heating ventilating, air conditioning, sump pumps, compressors, T@iA et encr ents,
balconies and storage equipment, etc.
Stamson:
. What is importaIl
encroachments.iie
districts.
. The inten ordinanc ...~~.~.. not to include eaves, gutters and porches. If the
senten , .g.~q!(101.53p~fgraph 1) it will clarifying specifically what it does
nQ!,jIlclude. The~~~~ment ~~fild not exclude flag poles and birdbaths.
'od solution to the'4Q,foot side wall.
hat the or.d.....l.....h... ance is not,.. .... c........ . nging - only clarifying yard
/.. . ............
~(~i;U..sl~fJ':il1owable yard encroachments for these
ructures, speci
in the bluff
Kansier said the DNR agreed with staff on the encroa8liffients o'
eaves, gutters and balconies which should not be p~tllUne4 as e
and lakeshore setbacks.
Mirsch suggested to redefine what a yard i
The public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m.
Comments from the Commi~sio ers:
.
Cramer:
. Agreed
. Mirsch bn ome valid points on interpretation. It can be confusing.
. Staff interp~~:: he same as the DNR.
. Maybe thisi~sue (encroachments) should be brought to the City Council to discuss.
. Kansier said the issue is defining a yard in the riparian lot. This proposal can be
brought before the Council and reschedule a public hearing and look at the language.
Atwood:
. Agreed with the Commissioners.
. The definition of yard needs to be defined.
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn050800.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8. 2000
Mirsch said the City cannot govern with intent, they have to govern with what is written.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF A BUILDING FENCE AND AMENDING THE REQUIRED SIDE
YARD SETBACK FOR WALLS EXCEEDING 40 FEET IN LENGTH AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIR.!2e(~T AFF\\~~OK
INTO DEFINING YARDS FOR RIPARIAN LOTS AND ~:J;;tENCROACHMENTS
ARE ALLOWED IN RESPECT TO BLUFF AND L HOREDISTRICTS.
5. Old Business:
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION C
6. New Business:
A.
Kansier explained t tial districts and density. With all
discussions regardip~ents, the City Council has asked staff
to bring this issue to the PI"...> g omml to discuss. Kansier gave a brief history
ck in 199~~lly the City Council. Staffwill bring the issue back
'\'::):+:.."'>!'
issiofit'e~ly June.
c:~i'-'
y\,p
Cotf~spondence:
for the May 22, meeting.
8.
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
I :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc
10
II
II