My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
1979-056K Council Ordinances
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Ordinances
>
1979
>
1979-056K Council Ordinances
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2019 11:12:50 AM
Creation date
3/25/2019 2:37:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Ordinances
Meeting Date
12/10/1979
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Ordinance #
56K
Ordinance Title
Amending Ordinance No. 6, Relating to Building Requirements, Rezoning certain property to General Business & Light Industrial
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 3 <br />ram` Planning and Zoning <br />October 17, 1979 <br />Rehbein indicated he had not contacted them yet. Mr. Gourley noted that Mr. Rehbein <br />had had this problem once before this year, and Mr. Rehbein indicated there had been <br />no argument on his part with that, and the problem had been resolved; however, in this <br />case, as far as safety factors, the adjoining house was 33 feet from the lot line and <br />the house in question was 8'6" in from the line, so there should be no problem. Mr. <br />Shearen felt the Board was more concerned with precedents --if they granted this one, <br />where would they stop? Mr. Heath added that the neighbor was entitled to build up to <br />10 ft. from the lot line, and it wasn't feasible to tell him he couldn't do so. Mr. <br />Rehbein asked about the situation where the neighbor is not willing to sell a foot and <br />a half of property, the Borad indicated that was the case with Mr. Nelson's house, and <br />hte 00 currently in suit, and was workinv with his title company and his lender and <br />oper. <br />Tim Rehbein had another matter for discussion concerning one of the two lots recently <br />d R-2, on which he proposed to build a duplex (side -by -side), one side to be <br />privately and the other to be used by himself, the upper level for model home <br />es ail the lower as an office. He intended to park vehicles outside, and the <br />would be used as shop space. Partof the lot, about 70 feet, was within the 300-ft. <br />r'cial"4one along Lake Drive. This was. just north of 77th street and just east of <br />Lino Auto Body; the duplex right across the street was used in a similar manner some years <br />ago and didn't create a problem. There was some concern as to the property reverting <br />to.a simple duplex after Mr. Rehbein moved out, and he indicated this was his intention. <br />%t,.*s felt this could be made a condition, so that somebody buying it for the same <br />purposes would have to go through the same process of applying for a permit. Mr. McLean <br />fe there. should be some screening provision for the neighborhood; however, it was felt <br />that'probably would not be necessary in view of the fact that the body shop was op one <br />side and Swan Frozen Food across the street. 'M McLean asked what specifically Mr. <br />Rehbein meant by the "shop" in°the garage. He indicated this was an attached garage <br />in which they would be storing various lumber, light, items like nails, and would be doing <br />light mechanic work for vehicles, no different than an individual would. There would <br />be four trucks parked outside, the heaviest a one -ton truck. It would not technically <br />be a shop, as they would have the model home upstairs. Mr. Gourley noted he might check <br />with the building inspector as to parking requirements, as he thought it would require <br />a larger driveway than normal, to accomodate people stopping by,so they wouldn't park <br />in the street. Mr. Rehbein was told he would need the signatures of the adjoining <br />property owners as well as the application. <br />The next item on the agenda was Golden's Rice Lake lot; however, Mr. Berget was not <br />present. <br />T next item on the agenda was a rezone for Land and Oaks, Inc., which had been on the` <br />genda at the last meeting, but nothing had been done. The representative present indi <br />ated he hadn't realized they were'on that agenda,. They were requesting a rezoning on <br />the property to light industrial, although they would also consider a general business <br />category. He asked if industrial zoning included commercial zones as well, and was told <br />they were different classifications. The developer indicated they were basically sellers <br />of land, and although they did build some buildings, and also bought from other contract- <br />ers to sell along with the land. He indicated they basically wanted to use the frontage <br />of the County Road and Main Street, and split the land up into a 16-acre piece and two <br />10-acre pieces so everything would have over 330-ft. frontages. Also, they had thought <br />about coming through the center with a road and putting lots off that. They had hired. <br />Midnight Drilling to perk the property and had gone over the results with Mr. Mobley. <br />He indicated that they were flexible at this point, and had more than one type of ten- <br />ant or owner in mind; they basically wanted to know what the Board's position was. Mr. <br />Mclean asked if they planned on splitting the property up into an industrial park, or <br />did they want blanket zoning in the hopes that something might happen? He indicated <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.