Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />June 8, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br />Staff stated in February, 2003 the Ci ty Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-03, <br />establishing an updated zoning ordinance text a nd zoning map for the City of Lino Lakes. <br />As part of the updated two business districts, the CB, Central Business district, and SC, <br />Shopping Center District were eliminated. All uses previously allowed within these <br />districts were provided for in the GB, General Business District. Therefore, it was <br />intended to rezone all CB and SC District s to GB, Section 7, Subdivision 4 of the <br />ordinance specifically addressed this change with regard to the CB district, however the <br />SC District was erroneously omitted. <br /> <br />He requested the Board correct this error and recommended amendment of Section 7, <br />Subdivision 4 and 5 of Ordinance 08-03. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agains t this request to make comment. <br /> <br />There were no comments made. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 6:41 p.m. and was supported <br />by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of amendment of Section 7, <br />Subdivision 4 and 5 of Ordinance 08-03 a nd was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion <br />carried 6-0. <br /> <br />B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for an Amendment to Planned Unit <br />Development, Marketplace Third Addition, located at the NE corner of Lake <br />Drive and Apollo Drive <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty reopened the publ ic hearing at 6:42 p.m. <br /> <br />Staff stated applicant was proposing to am end the existing Planned Unit Development <br />(Planned Development Overlay) for the Marketplace to amend the building layout and <br />types of buildings used on the site. Originally, the site was approved for five multi-tenant <br />buildings. The applicant is now proposing to have three multi-tenant buildings with two <br />single user buildings along Apollo Drive. <br /> <br />He noted this was a change from the request that was previously heard by the Board. <br />This change was brought about due to the co mments made by staff and the Board at the <br />May, 2005 regular meeting. <br /> <br />The applicant attempted to redesign the site to hold one back-to-back type multi-tenant <br />building, but the circulation and parking woul d be significantly diminished; and a great <br />deal of utility relocation would need to be undertaken; so staff directed the applicant to <br />abandon the concept. <br /> <br />The applicant has settled on a design that is significantly conforming to the original <br />layout of the site. At this point, the only real issues under review are the elevations of the