Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />June 2, 1983 <br />Hageman Mr. DeLonais recommended approval of the Glenn Hageman rear yard <br />Swimming setback variance of 7 feet for construction of a swimming pool at <br />Pool 2444 McMenemy. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. French. <br />Motion carried 7 — 0. <br />Shoreland yr. Licht requested the Planning Commission's action on shoreland <br />Management management. Mr. Licht reported that the DNR has now reclassified <br />the City's lakes to general development as requested by the City <br />with the exception of Twin Lake which was reclassified as recreational <br />development. Recreational development is the next step up from <br />general development. The majority of development on Twin Lake <br />will fit into the recreational development classification. <br />Mr. Licht reported that there is one change that he suggests in <br />the Shoreland Management Ordinance. That is, on page 3 Item E <br />regarding impervious surface to lot area the ratio states 30 %. <br />Mr. Licht reported that single family homes may have trouble meeting <br />this requirement. Licht stated that other ordinances he has done <br />for other cities have an exception in the ordinance that states that <br />this percentage can be exceeded if a shoreland impact plan is done. <br />Also the 30% could be exceeded if there is ponding provided on the <br />site. <br />Mr. Licht stated that as long as this protection is in the ordinance, <br />he felt the DNR would go along with it. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury asked if the ordinance the way it is presently written <br />would effect Mr. Schrier. Mr. Licht replied that the ordinance would <br />he restrictive to Mr. Schrier, but there would also he problems with <br />some single family homes. <br />Mrs. Timmons pointed out that most of the City's lake property is plotted. <br />Mr. Licht also pointed out that the ordinance will effect lake bodies <br />and not wetlands. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury asked about the requirement in the ordinance for 75 feet <br />of footage at the building line and the lakeshore. Mr. Licht replied <br />that everything plotted in the City would be grandfathered in. Licht <br />also stated that a way to get around this requirement would to come in <br />with a PUD where everything is averaged. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury asked if it were permissible to bring in sand on a <br />lakeshore. Mr. Licht stated that if a substantial amount of fill were <br />brought in it would he subject to a shoreland impact plan. <br />'age —2— <br />