My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/02/1999 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1999-2020 Park Board Packets
>
1999 Park Board Packets
>
08/02/1999 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2021 3:25:52 PM
Creation date
7/23/2021 11:22:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
08/02/1999
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
Park Bd Publication Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
194
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
COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1999 <br /> Ordinance No. 06 - 99 is a request to vacate the roads and easements originally platted in 1980 as <br /> a part of the Arborlake Plat. That plat was abandoned and replatted as Otter Bay in 1987 but the <br /> original roadways and easements of Arborlake were never vacated. <br /> Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 06- <br /> 99, as presented. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. <br /> Council Member Bergeson voted yes. Council Member Dahl voted yes. Council Member <br /> Lyden voted yes. Council Member Neal voted yes. Mayor Sullivan voted yes. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Ordinance No. 06 - 99 can be found at the end of these minutes. <br /> Consideration of Fogerty Investment,524 Apollo Drive,Rezone from eral <br /> Business,to PDO/Light Industrial,Jeff Smyser-Mr. Smyser state�cs rty Iii stments has <br /> submitted an application for a Planned Development Overlay for h ind son this site. <br /> �" <br /> The current applications include the rezoning to PDO, aii4, the P 0 evelc sment plan. The <br /> reason a PDO is needed is that there will be more than onb k ng on a lot,the preliminary and S'b- <br /> final PDO development are being combined into one. <br /> Mr. Smyser noted that future subdivision oftlerte will need to undergo a separate subdivision <br /> review process. <br /> Mr. Wessel added that d g't ie,earlier ri ting, Council Member Lyden requested building C <br /> be left as General Bus': ess '9 se -as a buffer. He noted that the clinic site was approved in <br /> July, 1996. The DistY3 2 A ng plan was approved in June, 1997. <br /> 4 1 <br /> Mr. Powell stat ' denting building C would raise issues concerning a joint access with <br /> the clinic or bui s /D. It is more efficient and cost effective to put in utilities all at the <br /> same time. Draii4igge would also be a concern relation to segmenting building C. <br /> Mr. Smyser stated he is very leery against the practice of splitting the lot with a zoning line. If <br /> the lot were segmented, a small area would be left that will be hard to develop. He stated that he <br /> does not believe the intensity of the difference in zoning between General Business and Light <br /> Industrial is large enough. Mr. Smyser read a passage from the Zoning Ordinance regarding the <br /> health hazards, traffic, noise, glare, fumes, and hazardous materials. He noted that parking could <br /> be an issue. However, retail parking requires more parking stalls than industrial. <br /> Ms. Divine stated that from an economic development perspective staff is concerned that both <br /> the clinic and Mr. Fogerty are successful. She stated that the compromise of removing building <br /> C is not a large enough benefit to the clinic. If building C is segmented,the area would be <br /> opened up to truck traffic. She stated Mr. Fogerty's buildings are very nice looking and quiet. <br /> 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.