HomeMy WebLinkAbout071403REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 14, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
e
7.
8.
9.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #03-69 Gary Staber, LeAmold and Judy Klingberg are requesting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map on property located on the
south side of CSAH 21, ~A block north of Colorado Street, west of Duluth Avenue
and East of West Avenue from R-L/MD to C-TC.
Case #03-64 Mark and Cindy Hess are requesting front and side yard variances
for the construction of a garage located at 6442 Conroy Street NE.
Case #03-70 Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that would eliminate the
requirements for averaging the front yard setbacks of the properties with 150 feet
but would still allow averaging as a means to reduce the required front yard
setback.
Case #03-71 Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 1104.308 (2)
to allow a reduced rear yard setback on lots separated from the lakeshore by a
platted common open space.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
LA03 Filea~03 Planning Cmnm~03 p~e~dn'~AG071403.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducte~d by the P]lanning Commission
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
ali who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME ADDRESS
LADEPTWORK~BLANKFRM~HSIGNUP.do¢
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 14, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the July 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff,
Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Absent*
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the June 23, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
*Commissioner Lemke arrived at 6:31 p.m.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #03-69 Gary Staber, LeArnold and Judy Klingberg are requesting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map on property located on the
south side of CSAH 21, ½ block north of Colorado Street, west of Duluth Avenue
and East of West Avenue from R-L/MD to C-TC.
Director of Community Development Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated July
14, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The City Council has initiated an amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map on approximately 5 acres of land located on the south side of CSAH 21, ~A block
north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue, from
R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to C-TC (Town Center).
This site consists of approximately 5 acres ofunplatted, vacant land. In 2001, the
property owners, along with Merlin Olson Development, submitted an application for a
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VINO71403.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
.~uly ~4, ~oo$
Preliminary PUD Plan for 32 townhome units on the site. The applicant ultimately
withdrew the application in December, 2001. More recently, the City Council initiated
this amendment and directed the staffto schedule the item for a public hearing before the
Planning Commission.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed C-TC designation as it is consistent with
the goals of the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan.
Atwood asked staff for the definition of the C-3 District and the C-TC designation. Rye
explained the design standards and criteria. Neighbors within 500 feet were notified.
Criego questioned the original Downtown Redevelopment Plan regarding this property.
Rye said it was not included. Criego did not see the tie between downtown and the lake.
Rye explained the 2020 Vision expanding the downtown area to the lake. Criego felt the
entire downtown plan should be looked at in a broader scope and see how this property
fits into it.
Comments from the public:
Grace Swanson, 16130 West Avenue, pointed out the noise and existing heavy traffic on
County Road 21. She would like to keep the property zoned residential. Atwood
questioned what she would rather see on the property in a cluster development. Swanson
did not want to see high density or commercial/retail rezoning, she felt single family
homes were more appropriate. There is generally high traffic with St. Michael's School
and the Casino. It is only going to get busier. People are not going to stop for shopping
in that area. Traffic is the main concern.
Jo Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, questioned if there is any public input on the
rezoning of the property. Her main concern is parking. The fishing people park on the
roads every day. Brandstedter understands the property owners need to develop. She
would like to see the area more appropriately changed to a park with a parking lot to fit
into the 2020 Vision. Her other concern was to maintain a high quality project.
Rye explained the C-3 District is traditional downtown uses. It does not provide for fast
food restaurants and things of that nature. The design standards for that district are very
high quality. One example is the Lakefront Plaza. There may be public hearing input,
depending on the type of use, but not in all cases. If there are uses allowed outright, there
will be no public hearings.
Stamson questioned if gas stations would be allowed in the C-3 District. Rye said new
ones would not be allowed.
Brian Sorenson, Transportation Engineer with Scott County, spoke on the right-of-way
needs on County Road 21. The current right-of-way along County Road 21 would not
accommodate the high density proposed 2 years ago. This could be a potential issue with
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3peMinutes~fNO71403.doe 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
rezoning even though the setbacks are a little different. The other concern is for the
potential access on Duluth Avenue. There is not a lot of room between the potential
access and County Road 21. Scott County would like to work with staff on the proposal.
Scott County is also in the process of hiring a consultant for County Road 21 to
accommodate traffic and access needs.
Rye questioned if the study would be dealt with or without this project, as far as access.
Sorenson responded it would, but is concerned with the change in the zoning and how it
lays the road groundwork. The study will take until June of 2004 to complete. It would
be beneficial for the City and County to discuss what this rezoning would mean in the big
picture of County Road 21.
Lemke questioned what the County's recommendation would be and if the County thinks
it needs land, shouldn't they buy the land now. Sorenson said he wouldn't disagree, there
needs to be discussions. When this proposal came through 2 years ago the County
needed at least 10 feet of right-of-way to deal with the left turn issues at that intersection.
They are limited with the wetland on the north side of County Road 21. The County
would like to take a bigger picture of the entire area and County Road 21 before they can
answer questions.
Dan Willgohs, 4432 Colorado Street, said his understanding was the 2020 Vision
included this area. He agreed with the Commissioner's comments and the County that
the bigger picture should be looked at before jumping into a rezone.
Sandra Huderle, 4345 Colorado Street, asked for an update on the 2020 Vision of
expanding the downtown to the lake with buy-outs. Rye said there were no plans.
Stamson explained the Comprehensive Plan. Huderle questioned the wetland on the
property. Rye responded it was protected and would be worked around.
Jo Brandstedter, questioned if this property was designated a different zone, what would
happen if the County came through and changed the designation fi.om the City's. Rye
explained the City's and County's jurisdictions.
Council Member Joe Zieska, addressed some of the concerns. One of the advantages of
the C-CT designation; is the setbacks which is closer to the road, an advantage to the
residents. Criego felt it was spot zoning. Criego questioned if there as an immediate
need to rezone. Zieska responded there will be some pieeemealing. They do not intend
on buying up residential housing. This is a vacant piece of property and it makes more
sense to zone it for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. It could take 17 years, but the
downtown area is going to look different in 17 years as well. There are no development
plans at this time. This is a long term development project.
Lemke pointed out the issue is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment not rezoning.
The public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m.
L:\03 Files\03 PlanningComm\03pcMinutes~fN071403.doe 3
Planning Commission Meeting
Ju~y ~ 4, 2003
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· This does not sound like a bad idea, but should be tied into a bigger plan.
There is no immediate need for this.
· The direction should be a long range vision and try to apply it to the plan set for
downtown Prior Lake and develop a Comprehensive Plan for the entire strip.
Would rather do that than piecemeal it.
· The Planning Commission and City Council should develop a plan.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Criego, but there are not a lot of vacant parcels along this route. It is
not appropriate to change homes. The Comprehensive Plan should accurately
reflect what the future use is.
· The issue before us is rezoning to C-CT appropriate? If not, what is?
Atwood:
· Agreed with the Commissioners, but this will not be developed tomorrow.
· Was going to suggest tabling this until the City Council and Planning
Commission could give a specific vision of this area. After listening to
everyone's comments, can support staff's recommendation. This can be pieced
in.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Lemke, we are putting the residents on notice for this property. This
is a vacant parcel and will not develop in the next 6 months, but it is going to
change.
· Support staff's recommendation.
Stamson:
· Can agree with both Criego and Lemke, but they are different ideas. We need to
look at the 2020 Plan which has not been discussed this evening. Does this really
meet the 2020 Plan? We talked about Lakefi:ont Plaza's neighboring property at
the last meeting.
· Should go back and discuss before taking action on this. It is a fairly drastic
change and should consider the neighbor's concerns and take a look at it. Have a
workshop with the City Council and discuss.
Ringstad said he assumes if this matter was coming down fi:om City Council they must
have some sort of approval. Rye replied he never assumes anything.
Criego feels this is a great vehicle to discuss the downtown area and how to connect the
lake. There is time. The other concern is the County Road 21 study and use. Who
knows how that will turn out?
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXlVIN071403.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
Ringstad pointed out with the proposed Comprehensive change on Dakota Street and this
would be a good time to look at the entire downtown area. Rye said staff is looking at a
proposal for a consultant to do market research on the downtown services and housing.
Criego asked for Planning Commission workshops to start discussing the area.
Stamson suggested scheduling a workshop every 6 months to keep up with the
Comprehensive Plan and downtown developments.
MOTION BY CRiEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE C-TC DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO DENY THE REQUEST AND
SCHEDULE WORKSHOPS TO LOOK AT REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN MAIN
STREET AND ANY OTHER PARCELS AS IT RELATES TO DOWNTOWN AND
THE LAKE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on August 4th.
Stamson and Criego suggested workshops and a public forum for input.
Atwood questioned how long the area was zoned R3. Rye responded since the railroad
gave up the property.
B. Case #03-64 Mark and Cindy Hess are requesting front and side yard
variances for the construction of a garage located at 6442 Conroy Street NE.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated July 14, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Mark and Cindy Hess are requesting variances from the zoning ordinance for the
construction of a garage and stairwell addition on property zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 6442 Conroy Street NE.
The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020
Comprehensive Plan.
In order to construct the garage addition the following two variances are required:
1. An ll. 04 foot variance from the required minimum 20foot average front yard
setback.
2..d 2.57foot variance from the required 5foot side yard separation setback.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~fN071403.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
In order to construct the stairwell addition the following variance is required:
1. A 3.28foot variance from the required 9foot side yard separation setback.
The applicant would like to construct a 22 foot by 22 foot garage addition and 4.5 foot by
19.5 foot addition on property zoned R-1 and SD. In order to do such, front yard setback
and side yard setback variances are required. The property currently does not have a
garage. The shape of the lot and existing dwelling location, which is outside the control
of the applicant, create an undue hardship, therefore staff supported the setback
variances.
Staff recommends approval of an 11.04 foot variance from the 20 foot front yard setback
and a 2.57 foot variance from the 5 foot side yard separation setback for the construction
of garage addition and a 3.28 foot variance from the required 9 foot side yard separation
setback for the construction of a stairwell addition, subject to the following conditions:
The resolution must be recorded at Scott Coun~ within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. The driveway shall be a maximum of 24 feet in width at the property line and meet
the minimum 5 foot side yard setback.
4. The driveway shall be surfaced with bituminous or concrete.
5. Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 37.3 percent.
Questions from Commissioners:
Criego asked if the applicant is requesting 2 foot eves, why is staff supporting that?
Kirchoff responded that is consistent with the home's existing eves.
Criego questioned the open space between the house and the garage. Kirchoffresponded
that would be part of the living area. It is already impervious surface.
Criego questioned if there was a back door on the house and why would they need a
stairwell. Kirchoffresponded it was a means to provide access to the home.
Criego questioned the distance between the buildings on the survey. Kirchoff said the
applicant will not need a variance for the stairwell.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutesXMN071403.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 200.3
Comments from the public:
Mark Hess, 6442 Conroy Street, agreed with staff and will comply with their
recommendations. He also pointed out the driveway was an easement. Criego asked
how he his going to remove the impervious surface. Hess responded it was only gravel.
The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: · The stairwell does not need a variance according to Kirchoff.
· Visited the property. This is not an exception, everyone needs a garage.
· Supported staff's recommendation.
Ringstad: · Homes in Minnesota are allowed a garage, this fits the category. The Planning
Commission has been consistent with that approach.
· Support the variances.
Lemke: · Wonderful opportunity to reduce impervious surface and construct a garage that is
necessary in Minnesota.
· Agreed with the variances.
Criego:
· There is only one house to the fight of the property, having it so close to the
easement is not a great problem.
· A two-car garage was at least a minimum requirement on a home. Substantial
improvement will be made to the home.
· Add a 6th condition, that the plan is updated to show the house improvement as
well as the garage.
Stamson: · Agreed with Commissioners that not having a two car garage is a hardship, but
not an absolute hardship. We would not grant any variance just because it is a
two car garage. It is important that the setback is 8.9 feet which is fairly tight. If
this was on a busier road, I would not grant this.
· This is a very unusual lot and right-of-way.
· The variance is warranted.
· Just wanted to note this is very unique piece of property that warrants this
variance, under different circumstances I would not vote for this.
· Criego agreed.
MOTION BY R1NGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 03-06
APPROVING AN 11.04 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutes~fN071403.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 2.57 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
5 FOOT SIDE YARD SEPARATION SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
GARAGE ADDITION WITH CONDITIONS INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL 6TM
CONDITION UPDATING THE PLAN SHOWING THE HOUSE IMPROVEMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson pointed out the appeal procedure.
C. Case #03-70 Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that would eliminate
the requirements for averaging the front yard setbacks of the properties with 150
feet but would still allow averaging as a means to reduce the required front yard
setback.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated July 14, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the front yard setback
provision in the R-S (Rural Subdivision Residential), R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2
(Low-Medium Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), and R-4 (High
Density Residential) use districts. The amendment would eliminate the 50 foot
maximum minimum average front yard setback provision. This impetus for this
amendment is the construction of a detached garage on property located on Manitou
Road. Based upon the average setback within 150 feet, the garage must maintain a 50
foot front yard setback (as the average setback exceeds 154 feet). However, due to
topography the property owner proposes to locate the garage 35 feet from the front lot
line. Thus, since the garage does not meet the required 50 foot setback, staffwould be
required to process a 15 foot variance. Staffbelieved this case provides an opportunity to
revisit the average front yard setback provision implemented in all residential use
districts.
The staff supported the proposed amendment as it would allow a structure to maintain a
25 foot front yard setback regardless of the setback of adjacent structures in all residential
use districts. This would still prevent the overcrowding of land yet allow the fair
application of ordinances, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
There was no public comment.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff. You can make an aesthetic argument for the greater setback
creating uniformity, but it shouldn't be a burden to the applicant because his
neighbors decide to set their structures further back.
· Does not see the justification to mandate what the neighbors do.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN071403.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
· It creates a city-wide equity. It gives some leeway in situations when one has to
be closer.
· Concurred with staffs findings.
Lemke: · Agreed. Lemke gave an example of requiring more impervious surface
(driveway) with the ordinance.
· Support the change.
Criego:
· Does not feel strongly one way or another. The only downside is that there could
be a situation where you want to build a house and utilize that space taking up the
impervious surface.
· As long as it does not exceed 30 percent impervious surface.
· Support staff.
Ringstad: · Agreed with Stamson but touched on Lemke's comments on ways to reduce
impervious surface, especially around the lakes.
· Supported the recommendation.
Atwood:
· Support staff's recommendation.
Stamson:
· This probably affects a small number of properties.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF ORDINANCE 03-XXX AMENDING SECTIONS 1102.306, 1102.405, 1102.505,
1102.605 AND 1102.706 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on August 4, 2003.
D. Case #03-71 Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 1104.308
(2) to allow a reduced rear yard setback on lots separated from the lakeshore by a
platted common open space.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated July 14, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to reduce the rear yard setback to 10 feet on lots separated fi.om lakeshorc by a platted
common open space. This amendment would impact shoreland property in any zoning
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN071403.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
district. Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission regarding this proposed
The proposed amendment would require a 10 foot rear yard setback on those lots abutting
platted lakeshore common open space. Structures would also have to comply with the
minimum shoreland setback. This would still prevent the overcrowding of land yet allow
the fair application of ordinances, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommended approval of the amendment.
Criego questioned what the typical baekyard setback would be. Kirchoffresponded the
rear yard setback would be 25 feet. Rye said the reason for the 10 feet is that typically
there are easements which are 10 feet.
Lemke questioned what would happen if there was a structure on the platted open space,
like an association and it was 10 or 15 feet from the lot, would the 10 feet apply or 25
feet from the two structures. Rye said it was not anticipated there would be a structure on
the common area.
Lemke pointed out under this proposal there could be less than 50 feet between
structures.
Criego said it prohibits people from building on the common area if there is structure
setback. Rye said some common areas are dedicated to the public and others are
dedicated to the residents in the plat. Typically the association lots are on outlots or a
collection of platted lots.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· With consistency or fairness of the 75 foot setback. If that's what is required of
others and substantially more than that. It is not fair to allow this.
· Rye said visually from the lake or from anywhere else you do not know there is a
property line. The intent of the 75 setback is to maintain a minimum distance
between the lake and the structure. It seemed to staff if that intent were met
through this dedicated lakeshore the purpose has been served.
Stamson:
· This seems highly unfair. It seems the 75 foot and 25 foot setbacks meet separate
goals. The 75 feet is to make sure the structure is far enough back from the
lakeshore. The 25 feet is to provide some useable space behind the home. It
doesn't create 100 feet.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN071403.doe 10
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2O03
· Rye said it could, if there was 75 feet of common space, and then you are back
another 25 feet from the property line. It is not so rare; a lot of the common
lakeshore is significant in its depth. It is not a matter of 10 or 15 feet.
· In the instance where the common area is 75 feet or greater it creates a larger
setback.
· First concern is that this is dedicated to just lakeshore. We are essentially saying
if there is open space behind your backyard, you don't need a back yard. If
you're not on a lake and you back up into a park, how is that different? It is not
fair. Rye said there are no park setbacks. The 75 feet has nothing to do with
maintaining a back yard, it is strictly to protect the lake. Throw out the lake and
you don't need the 75 feet. If its okay for people living on the lake that simply
have some open space behind them to do away with their rear yard, why can't I
do away with my rear yard? There is no difference.
· In my mind the 25 feet is to create usable space in your yard.
· Rye replied this basically gives one the option to put on a deck and are currently
precluded because of a 25 foot setback.
· Then we are allowing people to take the back yard activity and move it onto the
dedicated common space. You are imposing someone's backyard onto the
common area with no recourse. It doesn't even require an easement.
· If people need 25 feet for a back yard anywhere in the City then I don't why they
don't need 25 feet in the Shoreland District. It's a hard and fast rule. If not, then
lets do away with.
Lemke:
· The rear setbacks in this case are more typically done for uniformity and
aesthetics. It's different from front yard setbacks where there are site lines for fire
and other matters. An example is the downtown designation where you can build
fight to the street. We don't have 10 foot alleys between buildings. A 25 foot
rear yard setback is more for aesthetics. When you have 75 feet of open space
from the lake, you have met the intent of the 25 feet.
Stamson:
· The point is the 75 feet and 25 feet do not have anything to do with each other.
And the fact that one is there and the other is not is irrelevant.
Another example is that the City does not maintain the park or open space but
sometimes that space is dedicated for public use. So by now eliminating that
person's back yard, they're moving all their stuff onto the public space, you have
hindered the public space.
· It is really granting someone a rear yard they do not own. The homeowner's
associations now have to maintain someone's backyard. And the homeowners are
not party to this, they can't say no. We haven't given them the option.
· Now instead of having 30 people in their back yard, they'll have 30 people in the
common area.
Lemke:
· It could be that the people we are talking about own the land.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN071403.doc 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
Samson:
· They do not own the land exclusively; they own it with the association. There is
no opportunity to give the association a say if they want a structure less than 25
feet away from the property line.
· The argument of having 25 foot back yards is so someone can't build a house on
the property line. That's what this essentially does - it allows you to create a
house on a homeowners association, they may or may not be part of. Depends on
where in town you are talking. And there is no recourse for that party. The party
being imposed upon has no voice.
Criego:
· We have many setbacks, all for a purpose.
· Agreed with Stamson that 25 feet is for a rear yard setback is set aside for people
to utilize. It doesn't make any difference where it is located; they should have a
minimum 25 foot area to work in. Just because they live near some open area,
that should not allow them to reduce that amount of area.
· Whoever owns the public/common area will be limited in its use because now
homes could be much closer to the lake and actually inhibiting others to build. It
is not up to us to judge what or what cannot be built on particular properties if the
ordinance allows it.
· This is dangerous territory.
· Would rather see something on a variance situation based on the uniqueness of
the property rather than make this a common ordinance across the City.
Ringstad:
· After listening to both sides make their arguments, agree that this should be
determined on a case by ease basis.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Ringstad and Criego. Valid points - it's not just a gazebo, it is a
home by the open space.
· It is beneficial to look at these on a ease by case basis.
· Would not support.
MOTION BY R1NGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DENY THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
Ayes by Ringstad, Atwood, Criego and Stamson, nay by Lemke. MOTION CARRIED.
This will be heard by City Council on August 4, 2003.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business: None
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~MN071403.doc 12
Planning Commission Meeting
Ju~y ~4, ~oo~
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Criego brought up the issue of low/medium density discussions. Rye said it will be
discussed. Staff is looking at many upcoming issues that will come before the Planning
Commission.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Community
Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3peMinutes~VlNO71403.doe 13
iii I