My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/14/2001 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
11/14/2001 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2014 12:00:23 PM
Creation date
6/4/2014 10:31:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
11/14/2001
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.
/
55
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 />September 11, 2001 <br />Page 6 <br />Mr. Zych stated he was not comfortable with Mr. Piper's analysis of where a landowner on the <br />other lot would or would not build their home. He stated they did not have an elevation map in <br />which to make those conclusions. Mr. Piper indicated where the natural entrance to the cul -de- <br />sac would be located. <br />Mr. Zych asked if he could bring the garage forward. Mr. Piper relied he would run into the <br />setback from the street and aesthetically it would not look appropriate. <br />Chair Schaps asked if he could go deeper with the garage. Mr. Piper replied he could, but it <br />would be a detached garage. <br />Mr. Hyden asked how this would increase the value of both properties. He stated Mr. Piper's <br />property value would increase, but the future home on the other lot he believed would be <br />decreased. <br />Mr. Piper asked if he could get the variance if he went to 10 feet on the garage. Mr. Smyser <br />stated he needed a five -foot setback and if he went 10 feet, there would no need for a variance. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated the variance was clear and he did not see how they could approve this, <br />especially when it would affect any future home on the adjoining lot. <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to deny the variance to allow a zero side yard setback for an <br />Accessory Building with denial of variance being based on the staffs report, as well as the <br />neighboring landowner's permission not being obtained, and was supported by Ms. Lane. <br />Motion carried 5 -0. <br />C. PUBLIC HEARING - Molin Concrete, Amended Conditional Use Permit, Amended <br />Interim Use Permit, Site Plan Review <br />Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m. <br />Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for amendments to the <br />existing conditional use permit (CUP), amendments to the existing interim use permit, and for a <br />site plan review. Staff explained the requested amendments would change several of the <br />conditions that were adopted with previous approvals. The site plan review application was for a <br />new manufacturing building on the site. Staff stated the new building in and of itself required an <br />amendment to the conditional use permit because it differed from what was previously approved. <br />Staff indicated the earliest action in the City's address file was a rezoning in December 1968 and <br />special use permit issued to Molin in January 1969 to construct a concrete plant. The Sherwood <br />Green residential plat was approved in 1978. Amendments to the Molin special use permit were <br />approved for expansions in 1978, 1981, and 1983. In 1984 neighborhood complaints resulted in <br />a task force to study concerns regarding noise, blowing sand, and visual impact. <br />• Staff stated a storage building was approved in 1991, and another building addition approved in <br />1993. All the expansions included approvals of amendments to the special /conditional use <br />permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.