Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Case #3: Discussion Regarding Thoroughfare Setbacks <br /> <br />Zoning Adnflnistrator Frolik stated that Commissioner Deemer previously suggested revising the <br />setback distaste for structures from the centerline of County Roads and arterial street right-of-ways <br />from 110 fee~ to 83 feet. Staff was directed by City Council to review su~ounding communities' <br />setback requirements. Ms. Frolik submitted City Engineer Jankowski s report regarding his <br />research of ~e surrounding communities, the County's policies, and other concerns of the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated he believed that the 83-foot figure is most appropriate as long as that <br />setback doesl not supersede any other setbacks that also apply. He explained that leaving the <br />setback at 110 feet would be unnecessarily restricting the property owner from what might occur in <br />the future. <br /> <br />Motion by C_~ mmissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Holland to recommend that <br />Staff draft an[~ amendment to City Code, as discussed, revising the setback distance for structures <br />from the centerline of thoroughfares to 83 feet, noting that this setback does not supersede any <br />other setbacks; that exist. <br /> <br />Further DiscUssion: Commissioner Bawden agreed that making the setback any larger than 83 feet <br />would be an imposition on the property rights of people. Commissioner Terry noted that this is a <br />unanimous recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was the consensus of the <br />Commission Ithat Ms. Frolik should schedule a public hearing to amend the City Code in this <br />matter. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Holland, <br />Hendriksen, LaDue, Terry and Thorud. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Case /14: . Monthly Status Report <br /> <br />Commission~' Hendriksen noted activity on the Karst property, as mentioned in Case #6 of the <br />City Council[regular minutes dated June 22, 1993, and specifically that there are going to be <br />monthly cheeks of the property at no cost to Mr. Karst. He stated he believed it inappropriate that <br />the City is indurring those costs. <br /> <br />Zoning Admiinistrator Frolik explained that it was a term agreed upon in Mr. Karst's CUP for the <br />initial 12 mc~pths after start-up. She added that Mr. Karst incurs the cost of any follow-up <br />inspections n6eded as a result of violations found. <br /> <br />Commissiong Deemer inquired whether Mr. Karst had signed the CUP, and Ms. Frolik stated that <br />he had not dtle to the fact that he was not yet operating because the building is not constructed. <br />Commissioner Deemer stated that he is still using Lots 2, 3 and 4 as prohibited. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer inquired about the status of the sign ordinance, and Ms. Frolik stated that it <br />was introduce. It but has not been adopted. Ms. Frolik explained adoption was tabled and since then <br />the ordinance[has been shifting downward on her priority list. Commissioner Deemer suggested a <br />joint City Co ~t~ncil/Planning and Zoning workshop to address the matter if not resolved. <br /> <br />Case #5: Zoning Bulletin and Zoning News <br /> <br />The Commission noted the zoning periodicals. <br />COMMISSION INPUT <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Planning & Zoning Commission/September 7, 1993 <br /> Page 4 of $ <br /> <br /> <br />