Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Page 3 <br />March 10, 2020 <br />----------------------------- <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated the city ordinance is very clear that architectural plans are <br />required for projects that are not residential homes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito asked if that was for new construction or just <br />modifications. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated yes, an architect is required for any remodeling. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson noted the public hearing was already open. <br /> <br />Jason Ryan, 14115 Ranch Rd. NW, the applicant, stated he reviewed the conditions <br />as outlined and stated he is fine with them and they seem very clear. He stated he is <br />also curious about fire and building code requirements. He requested the Planning <br />Commission consider removing Condition 4 requiring curb and gutter and stated he <br />currently has Class 5 in place. He questioned the need for a concrete curb and apron <br />around a substance like Class 5 and wondered what was trying to be accomplished <br />with that requirement. He noted on an overhead image of his property where the <br />asphalt and Class 5 was located and wondered if there was a different type of edging <br />that could achieve the same result. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated the curb and gutter directs stormwater that falls on the <br />property and defines parking boundaries, so creep doesn’t occur. He indicated staff <br />states this as a requirement to contain parking boundaries, but the City Council can <br />waive the curb and gutter requirement. <br /> <br />There being no one else present to speak on this item, Chair Johnson closed the <br />public hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito recommended leaving Condition 1 in place and <br />contacting the state of Minnesota for guidance on how to appropriately handle these <br />types of situations, noting you cannot deviate down from what is laid out in state <br />code. She stated she is fine removing Condition 4. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson also agreed with Commissioner Larson-Vito’s comments in keeping <br />Condition 1 in place and removing Condition 4. <br /> <br />Commissioner Beise asked in reference to Condition 2 if the area surrounding this <br />property develops, which is zoned single-family, and this CUP stays with the <br />property, how many cars should be allowed to park on the property as his concern <br />this could turn into a junk yard. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated if the commission had a concern with the number of parking <br />spaces allowed, they could add an additional condition limiting the number of <br />vehicles parked outside. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thiel discussed Condition 11 and noted since there’s no fence now, <br />the condition helps shield the vehicles parked and provides a boundary around the <br />property. <br /> <br />