Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />OCTOBER 10, 1991 <br />be met. The Planner felt that the Hagen house as it <br />exists probably could not be rebuilt, however, if the <br />design were changed, some sort of house could be <br />reconstructed. <br />Hagen asked if the townhomes on the south side of the <br />lake meet setbacks. <br />The Planner replied that they do. <br />Drabik noted that the Commission would not be having <br />this discussion except for the fact that some property <br />owners along Little Canada Road have not maintained <br />their property. <br />Keis pointed out that there is a mixture of maintained <br />and non - maintained homes in the area. There is no <br />guarantee that property owners will begin to maintain <br />the deteriorating houses, and property values are <br />decreasing because of this lack of maintenance. <br />Drabik felt that the City should follow the DNR's <br />Shoreland Ordinance, which indicates that the area is <br />not right for single - family development. Drabik felt <br />that the matter was in the hands of the property <br />owners, since maintenance of their houses is the key. <br />If the property deteriorates to the point the 50% rule <br />kicks in, then it is the natural course that the houses <br />fall out of the area. <br />Pedersen felt that if the long -term decision is for <br />park land, then he felt that should be an official <br />policy put on the books. <br />Drabik did not see the area necessarily as park land, <br />but perhaps as a transitional zone. <br />The City Planner suggested that the zoning could be <br />changed to PUD, with the policy stated that there is <br />only enough area for a density of 6 single - family <br />homes. The City could inform the DNR that it will <br />maintain a density of 6 homes over the long -term, and <br />this will give the City a basis for dealing with the <br />DNR on the setback issue. <br />Drabik asked if the property would be replatted into 6 <br />lots. <br />The Planner replied that the property would not be <br />replatted, but there would be an indication that some <br />of the properties are not viable building sites. <br />The Commission asked what will happen to the Favis <br />property should the CUP and Variance not be approved. <br />Page 5 <br />