Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />July 28, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Rohlf further stated that Ms. White does have reasonable use of her <br />property as currently the lot contains the offices for Wapiti Park <br />Campground. <br /> <br />Virgil Herrick, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that Ms. <br />White can not develop her property under the present zoning because of <br />the uses adjacent to her property. The petitioners feel that there <br />would be an advantage to zoning the property to a PUD; it would protect <br />the current land owners by limiting the permitted uses that would be <br />normally allowed under the C-3 Highway Commercial zoning. He further <br />stated that this would give the City more control as far as density, <br />setbacks, how many units and where they would be located, etc. The <br />applicants are asking the Planning Commission to consider a PUD zoning. <br />They feel their request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan <br />because the Plan had evaluated Ms. White's property as a potential <br />commercial site. They further argued that the property was not suited <br />for residential zoning due to its location next to Highway 10, the <br />Custom Motors junkyard as well as the Sherburne County Government <br />Center. <br /> <br />Chairman Nadeau opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Carol Buscheck passed out a four page excerpt from the Comprehensive <br />Plan which showed the three possible zoning designations for Ms. <br />White's property. <br /> <br />After discussion of this issue, it was the general consensus of the <br />Planning Commission that this request would constitute spot zoning and <br />was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which has identified <br />this area as residential property. <br /> <br />Chairman Nadeau closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF <br />THE REQUEST BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE <br />PLAN AND THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITING STAFF MEMOS DATED <br />4/20/92 AND 7/20/92. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE <br />MOTION CARRIED 5-0. <br /> <br />6. Consider a Variance Request (Front Yard Setback) by Ken Dehn Jr/P.H. <br /> <br />Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the applicant is <br />requesting a 13 ft. variance from the required 30 ft. front yard <br />setback in order to construct a 10' by 12' entryway addition. <br />Currently, the existing house is 27 ft. from the front property line, <br />and therefore, encroaches on the required front yard setback. Staff is <br />recommending denial of the variance request for the front yard setback <br />encroachment as staff feels that the request does not meet the five <br />standards for a variance. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Chairman Nadeau opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Ken Dehn stated that one of the reasons they wanted to add the entry in <br />front of their house is because they have a split entry with a very <br />