Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 10, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. Nelson inquired about the other lots ha d been filled and the high water lot having <br />been moved. Mr. Bengston replied the DNR ha d not received any permits to bring in any <br />fill for these other properties and if this had been done the DNR would investigate as to <br />how this was permitted. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty inquired about the decks on the other two adjoining lo ts. He asked how <br />were these structures able to be built. Mr. Bengston responded uncovered decks and <br />porches were allowed to encroach into se tback areas and in this case the shoreline <br />ordinance might not have been in effect when the decks/porches were built. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked what the side yard set back was. Mr. Bengston repl ied it was ten feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if there was any reason why th e addition could not be built to the south. <br />Mr. Bengston replied according to setback standa rds, it did not appear there would be any <br />reason why the addition could not be built there, but there might be a drainage field on <br />that side. He indicated they would need to talk to the applicant about this. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Va riance to rear setback from <br />Ordinary High Water Level to build an addi tion to existing house, Benton Erickson, 6868 <br />W. Shadow Lake Drive based on the Findings of Fact as noted in staff’s July 14, 2005 <br />report and was supported by Mr. Root. <br /> <br />Mr. Root noted this was a tough decision and he understood everything the applicant said <br />and applicant’s concerns, but they had to follow the rules. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson asked if applicant would have the opportunity to go back to the DNR because <br />he believed applicant did have a hardship in this situation. Mr. Bengston responded <br />applicant could contact the DNR, but noted the 1 00-foot setback was a City requirement. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson asked if the high water line could be moved to be more e quitable to the other <br />lots. Mr. Bengston replied the only way for the line to change was if the DNR would <br />change it by lowering the lake or allowing fill to be brought in, but he was not sure if the <br />DNR would allow this. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson suggested the applicant pursue this with the DNR. <br /> <br />Motion carried 6-0. <br /> <br />C. Final Plat for Foxborough, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50-acre development south of <br />Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road <br /> <br />Staff stated the developer has changed the na me of this project from Fox Den Acres to <br />Foxborough. The City Council approved the pr eliminary plat for the Fox Den Acres <br />planned unit development on January 10, 2005 w ith Resolution 04-196. This project is <br />the first to implement the new parks and open space plan through the use of a <br />conservation development. The conservation development approach, while often <br />discussed in Lino Lakes in the past, has not previously been pursued to the extent being <br />seen on this project.