2005 02-28 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Discussion then was among the Commission. Mr. Wippich recognized two neighborhoods in Gem Lake. One neighborhood is less restricted by costs than the other. He said 2695 sq. ft. is not extravagant. He calculated a rambler would cost 25% more than a two story house. A split level house would not meet the needs of the height limit. Mrs. Robins had no comment. Mr. Lindner asked if engineering requirements mandated the house height. Mr. Lovelette answered that the house would be 28' whether the house was near a wetland or not. Mr. Lindner then read from Ordinance 43 section 5.4 outlining the specifics of granting variances. The primary reason a variance is warranted pertains to zoning ordinance language identifying the unique topographic and water conditions of the lot shape which makes a rambler style house unfit for this setting. A rambler would encroach on lot setbacks and by nature would push the main house back and hence closer to the wetland. We discussed the merits of not granting the variance and changing the zoning to allow for increased height limits. The commission agreed that this is a sensible thing to consider and will in fact request that the city clerk publish notice for a public hearing at the March Planning Commission meeting. We concur that height limits should remain at 25" in R4 and at 35' in R1, but that R2 and R3 represent a transition where greater building heights is logical. While there are very few if any undeveloped lots in these areas, there is the possibility that current houses may be torn down for rebuilding. Consequently it makes sense to modernize the zoning ordinance to meet current building requirements. Mr. Wippich then made a motion to allow for the variance. Mr. Lindner seconded. The motion carried 3-0. Mr. Lindner then explained the matter would be brought before the City Council on February 28 with a recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission. We agreed that the variance was warranted but we intend to review the ordinance and work to change the height requirements for future construction projects. Our next order of business was a public hearing concerning a request for a variance from Ordinance 43 15.15 (1) a, which limits businesses to one primary sign. Randy Ostebo represented his company, People's Plumbing and HVAC. He occupies the portion of Waldoch's strip mall formerly occupied by the wood molding company. Mr. Ostebo has one sign over the entrance to his office that faces County Road E. He wishes to add a second sign of identical dimensions (4'X12') on the west side of his shop. This would face Highway 61. His main purpose is to have sign exposure to traffic on each of the primary roads in the area. Much of his business is from people driving past his shop and seeing the signs. He primarily does residential work. His company is eighty years old and he bought it five years ago. He was formerly located on Otter Lake Road and in White Bear Lake. Mr. Ostebo drew a diagram of his building as it relates to the main roads on the white board. His claim to hardship is the unique shape of his building that does not lend itself well to one primary sign. J