Laserfiche WebLink
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 f -way easement <br />would be required. <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivisio ., wi y additional easement <br />other than what was already platted, and was supporte Lyd Motion carried 4 -0. <br />C. Item Deleted <br />D. Lino Lakes Family Dentis <br />Staff presented the application by <br />construction of a 5,067 square fo <br />The subject site was approximate <br />future commercial develop <br />Business District. Medic <br />Development of a co erci <br />by Section 2, subd. 5 <br />ive, Site Plan Review <br />ex R t had submitted site and building plans for <br />e building on property located on Apollo Drive. <br />40 s i + are feet in size. The property was guided for <br />mprehensive Plan and was zoned GB, General <br />uses "` ere allowed within this District as a permitted use. <br />was subject to site and building plan review as provided for <br />Ordinance. <br />om <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 build 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 corners 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 />