Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 14, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. Laden asked if city staff or the applicant explored building a garage within the <br />setback but configured in different direction or area of the property. Mr. Dahl explained <br />that they looked into other options but the applicant has a deck that would be in the way. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden asked for details on the maximum amount of accessory structures that can be <br />constructed on a given lot and the requirement for the applicant’s property. Mr. Dahl <br />stated that he did the calculations on this property and the applicant would still be well <br />within the requirements once the garage is constructed. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden invited the applicant to the podium. Dylan Lindman, 6602 Pheasant Run, <br />started out by discussing the setbacks at nearby properties. He noted that his new fence <br />would hinder the public from noticing that his property does not meet the setback and he <br />ensured that he is not going to trim the pine trees. Mr. Lindman summarized his <br />reasoning for wanting the additional space in his garage. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked Mr. Lindman if he is willing to accept the 30 foot setback, which he <br />responded that he is not, as it would not be functional. <br /> <br />Mr. Kassner questioned why the applicant chose a 24 foot garage since the national <br />average is 20-22 feet. Mr. Lindman discussed the reasoning, which is mainly due to <br />measurements of building supplies. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden encouraged the applicant to explore side loading the garage, which would <br />allow him to have his 24 foot garage. <br /> <br />Mr. Root expressed his support for the variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Kassner discussed his support for the 30 foot setback recommended by city staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Lindman asked how his property could be impacted by expansion on Birch Street. <br />Ms. Larsen answered that it would be considered a legal nonconforming structure. <br /> <br />Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend approval of a 10 foot variance, as <br />recommended by City staff. <br /> <br />Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Hyden abstained.) <br /> <br />B. PUD Concept Plan Review North Oaks Company, LLC <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen presented the staff report. Staff recommends submission of a revised concept <br />plan by the developer with consideration of the comments provided by staff report, <br />Council and Advisory Boards. <br /> <br />Prompted by Mr. Masonick, Ms. Larsen discussed the wetlands and floodplain in further <br />detail. <br />