Agenda - Council - 09/24/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Tmdgeon stated that Municipal State Aid streets should be included. Councilmember Anderson asked about Amendment A, Section 9.20.05, Subdivision 3, a, 4, and asked if they would, ever be able to build on the 300 foot wide undeveloped, natural separation. Principal Planner Trudgeon stated it is addressing a natural feature like a riverbed. Mayor Gamec stated they also talked about the ability to control and protect that area. City Attorney Goodrich stated that the very purpose of the natural areas is to leave them undeveloped. Councilmember Hendriksen suggested language be added to indicate "not eligible for future development." The Council agreed with that revision. Councilmember Kurak stated she understood it referred to wetlands, rivers, lakes, and permanent obstructions that could never be built on. City Attorney Goodrich stated that is correct and the added language assures that is the case. The Council agreed to amend Amendment A, Section 9.20.05, Subdivision 3, a, 3, to include Municipal State Aid Roads and Amendment A, Section 9.20.05, Subdivision 3, a, 4, to add "not eligible for future development." Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Kurak, Anderson, and Henddksen. Voting No: Councilmember Zimmerman. Councilmember Zimmerman stated he voted no because this is not a density transition ordinance but a screening ordinance. He noted that on County Road #116 a berm was to be included for the people but it was taken down so it was not permanent. He stated he does not think this ordinance will do the job with density transition. Councilmember Hendriksen stated he sees it as a half or third of a loaf but that's better than nothing and he hopes the Council will develop a true density transition ordinance at some point in the future. ""~ Case #8: Request for an Appeal to the Board of Adjustment Decision Relating to a Request for a Variance from Minimum Lot Size in the R-1 District; Case of Robert Longfield Principal Planner Trudgeon explained that Bob Longfield resides on a I0 acre parcel at 5751 i77m Avenue NW. In May 2002, the applicant requested a variance to the 4 in 40 density restriction and minimum lot size of 10 acres. Under the new zoning ordinance that took effect on July 11, 2002, Nh-. Longfield's land is no longer restricted by the 4 in 40 density restriction and the lot size minimum for his property was lowered to 2.5 acres. Since the applicant is proposing to subdivide his lot to create a new 2.06 acre lot and keep a 7.94 acre lot for his homestead, he will need a variance to the minimum lot size in the R-1 Zoning District. The Board of Adjustment has previously granted variances to minimum lot size. Most recently, in May 1998, John Gobernatz was granted a variance to create several 2.5 acre parcels (At the time, the minimum lot size was 10 acres.) The Gobernatz parcels are located across the street from Mr. Longfield's parcel. In order to grant a variance, there must be a determination that there is some physical uniqueness about the property that is causing the applicant a hardship and a reasonable use of the property. The applicant states that there are two reasons why the variance to lot size is needed; 1) the location of the existing house makes it difficult to create a 2.5 acre lot; and 2) that one-half of an -206- City Council/July 23, 2002 Page 20 of 30 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I