My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/13/1996 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
1996
>
11/13/1996 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 10:57:48 AM
Creation date
7/16/2014 10:19:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
11/13/1996
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.
/
13
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 />November 13, 1996 <br />0 Mr. Brixius stated that rezoning can be initiated either by property owners or by <br />the City. <br />Chair Schaps stated that paragraph 1. Rezoning (Trigger Mechanism) should <br />stipulate upon request and demonstration of need, so that rezoning is not just a <br />matter of 25 percent of the buildable area having been developed. <br />Mr. Dunn referred to page 3 -18, paragraph 8.a.3), and asked why the maximum <br />height requirement is not stipulated for accessory buildings in rural districts, <br />when the ordinance is specific in other districts. <br />Mr. Brixius stated that the current ordinance has no maximum height <br />requirement and, therefore, was not changed. This lack of specification is <br />exclusive to rural districts with lots of 20 acres or more because accessory <br />buildings in rural areas could mean silos, barns, windmills, etc. <br />Mr. Dunn expressed his concern that accessory buildings in rural districts could <br />be at a maximum height and be placed 5 feet from the property line. He <br />requested that this provision be reconsidered in the future. <br />Ms. Dahl commended the Planning and Zoning Board for the work that has been <br />done on this ordinance over the past year. As a new Board member, she has <br />had only six days to read and comprehend it and also would like to ask some <br />questions. She referred Board members to page 3 -1, paragraph B.4., regarding <br />nonconforming structures that cannot be re- established if more than 50 percent <br />of the current fair market value is destroyed. She asked how that 50 percent is <br />determined. <br />Mr. Brixius responded that the 50 percent of current fair market value is <br />determined by the County Assessor. <br />Ms. Dahl asked the reason why references to tower or satellite heights were <br />changed either to 10 feet up 10 feet down from what was stipulated in the old <br />ordinance. <br />Mr. Brixius stated that the previous ordinance had two conflicting provisions: a <br />general provision of a 45 -foot height and a conditional use permit for towers and <br />satellites at a height of 55 feet. Previously constructed towers were <br />grandfathered in, but it was decided to require a consistent height of 45 feet <br />across the board in the new ordinance. <br />Ms. Dahl asked if more meetings are scheduled to review this zoning ordinance. <br />IIIMr. Brixius stated that it is being presented at a public hearing at this meeting <br />and if approved, it will be presented to the City Council. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.