Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />DECEMBER 9, 2004 <br />•:• the fact that the developer stood and acknowledged that there was in fact <br />an existing water problem that is well known to everyone, and he has <br />talzen whatever steps he could to address the problem as long it didn't <br />impact the size and number of lots for his development. The developer <br />will build his 12 homes and move on, when in fact the necessary solution <br />to the problem might become much more complex now that he is placing <br />homes in the land that might have been part of the answer to the problem. <br />If some of the Gervais Hills homes flood, he can say that he did what he <br />could as long as it didn't impact his development. <br />Barraclough recommended approval of the Final I?1at for Gervais Hills as <br />presented subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City <br />Planner and (pity Engineer, and subject to cou~pliance with any <br />requirements made by MN I~OT. <br />Motion seconded by Rheaume. <br />Motion carried 6- t. Knudsen voted against. <br />AMENDMENT The City Planner presented a proposed Amendment to the Zoning <br />TO ZONING Code which provides additional regulations relative to accessory <br />CODE - buildings. 1'he Planner indicated that essentially there are two changes <br />ACCESSORY being proposed. Section 1 of the amendment includes the square footage <br />BUILDINGS of sheds and accessory buildings in total floor area allowed for gar-ages <br />and other accessory buildings. "Che second change in that section states <br />that no CUP shall be issued fa' detached accessory building or garage area <br />of more than 1,000 square feet to a maximum of I O% of the rear yard. <br />The Planner indicated that the change proposed in Section 2 eliminates a <br />property owner's ability to have a detached shed when a CUP is issued for <br />garage and accessory building area exceeding 1,000 square feet. The <br />Planner noted, however, that this restriction could result in a code <br />enforcement issue. <br />Keis felt that there should be "a chicken in every pot and a detached shed <br />in every Yard". <br />Weihe asked if the Code provides a clear definition of backyard. The <br />Planner stated that back yard is defined as the area of the lot behind the <br />house itself. <br />Barraclough indicated that his only concern wiflr the Ordinance <br />Amendment is the code enforcement issue. The Planner noted that the <br />prohibition on sheds will be easy to enforce at the time a property owner <br />-4- <br />