My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/10/2000 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2000
>
05/10/2000 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2014 11:09:55 AM
Creation date
6/30/2014 1:55:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
05/10/2000
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.
/
57
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 />April 12, 2000 <br />Page 7 <br />• will be contingent upon City approval of MUSA, a preliminary/final plat, access /roadway <br />• <br />• <br />configuration, and site and building plan review. <br />Staff noted the City's EDAC had reviewed this request and unanimously recommended <br />approval. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with two conditions and approval <br />of the minor subdivision with the combination of two parcels. If denial is considered <br />Staff has identified two reasons for denial. <br />Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he had anything to add to Staff's presentation. <br />Willard Morton, applicant indicated he had nothing to add to the Staff report which he <br />found to be very thorough. <br />Chair Schaps asked for further public input. There being none, he entertained a motion to <br />close the public hearing. <br />Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:21 p.m., and was <br />supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. <br />Upon inquiry, Ms. Wyland reviewed the uses s +undin s site and explained that <br />property owners within 600 feet were notified � `al telephone calls were received, but <br />no comments received from the VFW. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if there were conc <br />Wyland stated the questions asked <br />parcel but no concerns were expre <br />Mr. Rafferty asked why the <br />ssed by the residents on Lois Lane. Ms. <br />pplicant intended to rezone the entire <br />ing the four (4) acre parcel.. <br />of parallel to Lake Drive rather than a larger <br />rectangular shaped piece that g ough a residential area. <br />Mr. Morton explained they have had a number of people familiar with commercial <br />development study the site and it was viewed as being more versatile in this <br />configuration. He advised that a sketch plan of five lots had been developed based on <br />this configuration. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Morton if he owns any additional property on Lake Drive. Mr. <br />Morton stated he owns a sliver of land currently zoned commercial but it is too small to <br />be functional. Thus their request for a combination. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Morton if he has heard any concerns expressed by residents. Mr. <br />Morton stated he has personally visited ten to twelve home owners along Lois Lane and <br />their concern is that they do not want 80 acres of commercial but had no objection to this <br />proposal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.