My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/12/2000 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2000
>
04/12/2000 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2014 12:57:17 PM
Creation date
7/15/2014 10:23:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
04/12/2000
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.
/
19
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 />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 heari t g` ., and was <br />supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. <br />Upon inquiry, Ms. Wyland reviewed the uses s $ ' n g P is site and explained that <br />� <br />property owners within 600 feet were notif lephone calls were received, but <br />no comments received from the VFW. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if there were c <br />Wyland stated the questions ask <br />parcel but no concerns were <br />sed by the residents on Lois Lane. Ms. <br />applicant intended to rezone the entire <br />arding the four (4) acre parcel.. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked wh d = c, not parallel to Lake Drive rather than a larger <br />rectangular shaped piek goes through a residential area <br />Mr. Morton explai have had a number of people familiar with commercial <br />development study site and it was viewed as being more versatile in this <br />configuration. He ad %ised 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.