Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD <br />March 8, 1995 <br />the lake. Mr. Brixius indicated a Planned Development <br />Overlay would be in reference to a multi -family unit <br />development. <br />Mr. DeMotts referring to page 30, inquired if no <br />businesses were allowed. Mr. Brixius indicated that <br />would be in regards to businesses in the designated open <br />space, the city does not want business in a residential <br />Planned Development Overlay. This would not preclude <br />businesses along the lake. <br />Mr. Mike Treus, 675 Shadow Court, inquired as to the <br />appropriate use of the lakes, he wondered if this was <br />experimenting with the lakes. He inquired as to the <br />objective of the Shoreland Ordinance. Mr. Brixius <br />indicated the objective of the ordinance is basically to <br />protect the use, the water quality, storm water control <br />and user enjoyment of lake surface. That is why setback <br />requirements, performance standards of the storm <br />drainage, and vegetation removal are stressed in the <br />ordinance. <br />Mr. Treus inquired why the city is wanting to deviate <br />from the model ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated the <br />density surrounding the lakes is a factor, the <br />application of flexibility is very limited. He noted the <br />flexibility requested by Lino Lakes is not unique, other <br />cities have requested even more aggressive flexibilities. <br />The DNR realizes not every city is the same. <br />Mr. Treus inquired if preserving the lakes is a goal, is <br />development not risky. Mr. Brixius indicated the <br />flexibility is requested because only 35% of the <br />shoreland is developable. Mr. Brixius noted if there was <br />not adequate protection the DNR would not have approved <br />the flexibility. <br />Mr. Treus indicated he preferred following the DNR model <br />ordinance. <br />Ms. Donlin indicated regarding quality of the lakes, is <br />there a way to establish the size of motors allowed on <br />the lakes. Mr. Brixius noted this issue would be <br />addressed by a policing issue and would pertain to <br />zoning. <br />Bill Johnson made a MOTION to CLOSE the public hearing at <br />7:55 p.m. and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted <br />aye. Motion carried. <br />Mr. Johnson noted a correction on page 30 under paragraph <br />three, line three, it should state "Association", not <br />"Associate". <br />6 <br />