Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 19, 2006 <br />relative to the storage of recreational vehicles on residential properties, <br />and the majority of those responding felt current regulations were <br />satisfactory. The Administrator noted that while there is one property <br />owner on Edgerton Street thaC feels strongly about how his neighbor stores <br />his recreational vehicles, the City receives only a very few complaints <br />about this issue. <br />In discussing whether or not to require screening of recreational vehicles <br />and equipment when stored in side or rear yards, LaValle noted that <br />implementing such a requirement would resulC in a lot of fences being <br />constructed. IC was the consensus of those present to retain the current <br />parking and storage requirements for recreational vehicles and recreational <br />equipment. <br />In noting the reference to permitted home occupations, it was suggested <br />that the reference be expanded to highlight Chat there are certain home <br />occupations that require a special use permit. <br />Allan suggested that the issue of sports courts be addressed. It was noted <br />that sports courts are a permitted accessory use provided they are located <br />behind the rear line of the house. Allan asked about the 30% impervious <br />surface limitation, and it was noted that currenCly the limitation applies to <br />properties in the Shoreland District. In discussing the impact of Che 30% <br />impervious surface limitation relative to properties with sports courts, <br />pools, decks, etc. it was the consensus to leave the current code language <br />as is. <br />Those present had a lengthy discussion about the provision in the R-1 <br />District for residential planned unit development. It was the consensus of <br />those present to eliminate this option from the R-1 District. It was noted <br />that in the event there is the need, a site could be rezoned Planned Unit <br />Development in order to address the need for clustering of homes, etc. in <br />developing a challenging piece of property. <br />The Planner noted that some cities require that wetland areas on properties <br />proposed for development not be counted into lot area requirements. <br />There was extensive discussion of this issue, and the consensus was that <br />setback requirements be measured from the delineated wetland line. This <br />will ensure that homes have usable yard area as required setbacks would <br />have to be outside a wetland. The Planner indicated that he would draft <br />the appropriate language and coordinate it with the Shoreland District <br />language. <br />2 <br />