My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/13/2019 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2019
>
11/13/2019 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2022 4:10:46 PM
Creation date
11/8/2019 2:48:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
11/13/2019
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 9, 2019 <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to approve the Stern Addition Preliminary Plat with <br />recommendations and additional change the shore line access to 20 feet. Motion was <br />supported by Mr. Ruhland. Motion carried 6-0. <br />C. Watermark 2nd Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat <br />Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. <br />Mr. Root expressed confusion regarding resolution 17-133. Ms. Larsen clarified that <br />it is only the 3-stall garage house plan that the amendment would apply to. Staff and <br />the board discussed the resubmittal process. The 2-stall garage house plan, that meets <br />the 64 foot wide lot requirements, can be built. <br />Mr. Stimpson made a MOTION to approve the Watermark 2nd Addition Final <br />Plan/Final Plat. Motion was supported by Mr. Ruhland. Motion carried 6-0. <br />VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS <br />A. Mini Self -Storage Facilities <br />Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. <br />Ms. Peacock questioned traffic flow and suggested they primarily be kept in <br />industrial areas. Staff explained traffic is a factor that would be evaluated. <br />Mr. Grochala stated that the City is trying to create property tax value. The fully <br />enclosed structure would be appropriate for light industrial districts. They have an <br />opportunity for higher value products and are adjacent to where people have put a <br />greater investment into their buildings. Mini multi -storage buildings may be best in <br />general industrial districts. The goal is to find the best places for storage facilities <br />knowing they are not going to create a lot of tax value. <br />Board members suggested placing multi -unit storage in general industrial areas due to <br />fiscal and aesthetics reasons. An indoor storage building looks like any other business <br />and could be located in light industrial or commercial districts. <br />Mr. Evenson questioned regulations regarding the number of buildings allowed on <br />site due to location in an industrial zone. Ms. Larsen responded that regulation is <br />based on hard cover; this wouldn't limit the number of buildings but would be self- <br />regulating. <br />Chair Tralle stated that he observed little car traffic at a storage facility in Columbus. <br />He is in favor of self-contained bigger box storage. <br />Mr. Laden asked about the valuation of the self-contained storage buildings. Mr. <br />Grochala stated that he predicts that the bigger box interior storage units have a <br />higher per square feet value to them. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.