My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/08/2001 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
08/08/2001 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/4/2014 3:47:55 PM
Creation date
6/3/2014 12:20:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
08/08/2001
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.
/
79
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
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />June 13, 2001 <br />Page 5 <br />informed that the City was requiring the 65 -foot roadway easement. He asked when the <br />purchase agreement was signed the agreement stated if the roadway was ever to be used as a <br />dedicated public road, then they would give up the 65 -foot easement, but until that time, it would <br />remain as it was. He stated Mr. Iverson had agreed to that and had signed the purchase <br />agreement. He indicated now Mr. Iverson was asking for a 66 -foot easement. He stated if this <br />did not get resolved, the property might be not closed on. <br />Chair Schaps stated it appeared Mr. Walton and Mr. Iverson did not see eye to eye and the <br />Planning and Zoning Board had no authority to enter into this type of a dispute. Mr. Walton <br />replied he understood that and he requested the 66 -foot easement be struck from the <br />recommendation to the City. <br />Mr. Brian Iverson stated he had not figured anything out yet, but whatever the City wanted to do <br />was fine with him. <br />Mr. Powell noted that if Mr. Iverson wanted to develop it in the fyre, ght >f- -way easement <br />would be required. <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivisid <br />, wi u y additional easement <br />other than what was already platted, and was supporte M Lyd. Motion carried 4 -0. <br />C. Item Deleted <br />D. Lino Lakes Family Dentis �s�llo D. °ive, Site Plan Review <br />Staff presented the application by <br />construction of a 5,067 square fo <br />The subject site was approximat <br />future commercial develop <br />Business District. Medic <br />Development of a co erci <br />by Section 2, subd. 5 <br />t had submitted site and building plans for <br />e building on property located on Apollo Drive. <br />s • are feet in size. The property was guided for <br />mprehensive Plan and was zoned GB, General <br />ere allowed within this District as a permitted use. <br />was subject to site and building plan review as provided for <br />Ordinance. <br />Staff presented its analy of the request by explaining the only issue was that the drive aisle on <br />the west side of the buil • g was set on the property line and not back 10 feet as required. This <br />driveway was within a parking easement established over the common lot line with the property <br />to the west and was indicated to be temporary. <br />Staff indicated the footprint was approximately 4,792 sq. ft. The building was a single story <br />structure with a pitched roof and a height measured to be 19' high. <br />Staff stated the elevations featured cultured stone on the forward part of the south elevation and a <br />lap siding of "cement board" on the remaining portion of the south elevation, as well as the sides <br />and rear of the building. Additional cultured stone accents were provided at the comers of the <br />• building. The peaks of the pitched roof also used the plank material. Section 3, Subd. 4.B <br />allowed for use of decorative concrete panels for commercial uses. Provided that the "cement <br />boards" were consistent with this classification of material the exterior of the building would <br />conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.