2006 05 15 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

J NMI Telephone: ( 651 ) 426 - 6443 CITY OF GEM LAKE Office of the City Clerk 1369 County Road "E" East Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 Email: gemlakecity@aol.com , 5 ae Facsimile: ( 651 ) 426 - 6444 Memo to: Mayor Emeott Cc: Fritz Magnuson, City Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney From: Jack Hoeschler, Planning Commission Chair Date: May 4, 2006 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of May 2, 2006 The Gem Lake Planning Commission held its May meeting at 7 pm on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at Tousley Ford. Messrs Rafferty, Lindner and Hoeschler were present along with Paul Emeott acting as co -zoning administrator. We were also joined by Mr. McNulty and his counsel, Mrs. Shearen, and the Swomleys. The main focus of the evening was the changes to the zoning ordinance (43G) embodied in so- called Version F. We spent most of the evening discussing possible changes to our height regulations — the topic that had started us on our review of the entire document so long ago. There was agreement that the language should be changed to establish the low point of measurement at the ground level 6 feet from the front door of a house. After considerable discussion, we agreed to continue to use an "absolute" method of measuring height — i.e. to the highest point of a roof (not counting cupolas, antennae, or chimneys) rather than to the mean height of the roof structure. We agreed that the absolute height limits for the main structure and any accessory structures in the various districts should be as follows (measurements are in feet; new reflects change agreed upon; old reflects former rule): District R-1(3 ac) R-2(lac) R-3(3/4 ac) R-4(1/2 ac) Main Structure -new 35 30 30 30 Main Structure -old 35 30 30 25 Accessory Structure 25 15/20* 15/20* 15 Accessory -old 25 15 15 15 *In R-2 and R-3 districts, an accessory structure may exceed 15 feet (up to 20 feet) upon issuance of a special use permit which will address: a) The location of the structure in the back yard (i.e. behind the rear line of the principal structure) of the lot; b) With such landscape screening as the city may require; and c) Along with such other requirements as the city may deem appropriate to mitigate the impact of the size of the structure on the neighborhood. We agreed to adopt the wordsmithing changes suggested by Mr. Rafferty to the language of the height rules that Mr. Hoeschler had circulated (these changes drop restrictions on fenestration and also drop any specific numerical requirement for screening 60% of the structure and instead simply reference the need for "partial" vegetative or topographical screening). During the course of the discussion Mr. Rafferty spoke strongly in favor of not attempting to "legislate" good design. In the end, we agreed that we were merely trying to state outer limits