Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning <br />Page Three <br />IIIMr. Heath asked if this proposal had been submitted to RCWB and was told yes. <br />It has received approval pending documents that the ponding areas are on <br />dedicated public property and the final drainage plans. <br />Mr. Johnson said he was concerned about the drainage - at the last hearing <br />the indications were that there were objections to the plat from either the <br />DNR or RCWB. He had called both agencies the next day and neither had any <br />knowledge of the plat. <br />The Engineer explained these agencies will not consider any project until it <br />has preliminary approval from the City Council. This plat now has preliminary <br />approval of the City, therefore, it had been submitted for review and comment. <br />There has also been an EAW prepared and submitted. <br />There was a lengthly discussion on water drainage with maps being used. <br />Mr. Prokop questioned Mr. Short on his statement that the quads would cover <br />approximately 9% of the land area - he had done a rough out on one of the lots <br />and found the building covered around 25 %. Mr. Short said his computations <br />were on the efntire area - not individual buildings or lots. <br />Mr. Heath was concerned about the status of the Special Use Permit. this had <br />5eco reaffirmed in July - preliminary approval of the plat in July what is the <br />status of the special use permit in realtionship to the Court ruling? <br />Mr. Locher said this is the basis for the Court action - the land had been <br />•platted under Ord. #6 and the special use permit was issued under that <br />ordinance - then Ord. #56 was written and it was felt that the special use <br />permit was governed by that ordinance. <br />Mr. Prokop asked if this means that the original spe1aal use permit is void <br />and Mr. Locher said the Judge did not pass on that. This action is a new <br />request. <br />Someone asked about the zoning on the outlots and Mr. Locher said under Ord. #6 <br />this land is zoned residential and this still applies since there was no <br />zoning map published in conjunction with Ord. #56. Therefore, the zoning <br />under Ord. #6 applies to this property. <br />Mr. Heath opened the meeting for questions from the audience. <br />Mr. Hook, Attorney for the Homeowner's Association, said he would like to give <br />some education to the Planning and Zoning Board. He said the special use <br />permit is held in abeyance. He said that Judge Bakke, off the-record, said <br />how he would rule on this request. He pointed out this is a brand new <br />application and reverts back to what is the property today - he felt the <br />developer's wasm to change from residential, single family to R -5. He said it <br />is very questionable whether Mr. Locher's opinion that in 1980 there are only <br />t /Czonings in the City of Lino Lakes - Res. and Comm. mimiammwomespolt. He dis- <br />agreed and said that Ord. #56 sets forth all zoning districts. <br />Itr. Hook listed the types of zoning districts and informed the P &Z what type <br />action is needed to approve requests for these districts. Mr. Hook spoke <br />at length on the issuance of a special use permit in azoning district and how <br />the State Zoning Statute relates to this act. <br />Mr. Hook assured the Council, that if a special use permit were approved at <br />