06-20-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved at this site and consider processing a rezoning for it. Zisla inquired how long it would take to have this project come back before the Commission with the rezoning, site plan approval, and the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Gundlach replied that the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning could be ready for the July meeting. Mark Kemper, Kemper and Associates, stated that he is concerned about several issues with this redevelopment. The first is the visibility of his building if the new structure is allowed to be fifteen feet forward, the second is that the plan is requiring an additional four boulevard trees, which may further reduce the visibility of his building, and the third is that the only space for snow storage may be up against his building. Zisla inquired if his concern about the proximity of the building to the street a concern or an objection. Kemper replied that it is an objection, he stated that there are few buildings in the City that are allowed to be that close to the street and it is across the street from a residential area. And the staff report states that the city rarely grants variances across from residential areas. Stenglein approached the Commission and stated that they have clients that are in the process of negating their leases and they are willing to move the building away from the street to help further this processes along. He inquired from staff how many of the variances would be removed if they pushed the building to the back of the lot. Gundlach replied that by pushing the building to the back of the lot, would result in them being able to build the building at the size currently proposed because the parking set back requirements are the same as if it’s a building. Murkowski added that because the site is so small it’s extremely difficult to develop and get maximum revenue for the City and themselves. Table the application so that staff can pursue a rezoning Motion by Baker, Second by Zisla to and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property. MOTION CARRIED. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Informational Items Gundlach announced that the Council has requested that staff create fencing regulations for lake shore properties. She stated that currently a property owner can place a fence up to the lake shore line. Baker inquired if the DNR regulates that at all. Gundlach replied that the Rice Creek Water Shed District regulates the shore land for Long Lake and they do not have a regulation addressing this issue. Fernelius stated that this would come back before the Commission in July and the City will send an announcement to all residents that are on a DNR classified lake. Gundlach announced that the second information item is regarding the moving of the Commission meeting time. Zisla inquired if 7:00 is possible, since many people may not be able to make a 6:30 start time. O’Keefe agreed that 7:00 is a better time. Baker replied that the July meeting will begin at 7:00 pm. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\06-20-2006.docPage 14 of 15