Laserfiche WebLink
86 <br />W. Summers stated that there was no way of bringing any development into Lino Lakes <br />without burdening the schools. He stated that the parcel was within striking distant <br />of the sewer and that the Youth Center had a Mcrying need" for sewers. Asked if <br />this statement had some basis or if it were hearsay, Mr. Summers allowed that this <br />was hearsay, but that Mr. Jensen of Suburban Engineering had stated that in the spring <br />the high water created a problem at the Youth Center. Mr. Summers noted that in <br />parcel 1, the 300' commercial on either side of the highway made up some 1/4 to 1/3 <br />of the entire parcel, excluding 4 lots shown on the plat map. <br />Mr. L'Allier stated that the parcels should be dealt with one at a time. He stated <br />that parcel 2 (as shown on the map) was the same parcel for which Mr. Stein had <br />requested a trailer court and which had been ultimately rejected by both the Planning <br />& Zoning and the Council. Mr. Locher noted that Mr. Menkveld had no signatures for <br />this parcel. There had been no signatures for Mr. Stein either, but the Council had <br />petitioned to hold hearings; no changes were known to have been made to the land; <br />Mr. Stein had shown a detailed mockup of the proposed court. Mr. Summers stated that <br />they would be more than willing to create a 300' buffer zone on the northeast and <br />southwest sides of the parcel and this would take care of the 2/3 required signatures. <br />Mr. Cardinal asked if this hadn't been done on Mr. Stein's request also and was told <br />that it had been only on the north side. <br />Mr. Summers stated that since the Clerk had taken the money and the petition that <br />the hearings must be held. Also they couldn't go to the Pollution Control Agency <br />without Council approval. Mr. Locher mentioned that the acceptance of the money <br />and the petition was merely a clerical act and was not binding on the Council; we <br />were not sure about the Pollution Control Agency requirement as mentioned. Mr. <br />Locher noted that the Ordinance says "will" and not "shall" as far as the Council <br />being required to hold hearings on rezoning and special use permits if a 2/3 signatur <br />petition is received. <br />Mr. Cardinal moved, on the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board, that the <br />request for hearings for rezoning and special use permit on parcel No. 2 be denied <br />for the reasons of lack of sewers, overloading of the schools and Mr. Locher's <br />statement that Lino Lakes is not obliged to hold such hearings on a parcel for <br />which similar hearings were held such a short time ago. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. <br />Motion carried with Mr. Bohjanen noting no. Mr. Locher noted that the fee of $75.00 <br />for a trailer court request would be returned for this parcel. <br />Mr. L'Allier mentioned the resolution that had been adopted at the last meeting <br />stating that the Council would take up to one year to discuss and review mobile <br />home sites. Mr. L'Allier stated that the reasons that Lino Lakes had not yet adopted <br />a comprehensive zoning plan were because of the airport and that we are not completely <br />convinced that something can't be done to improve our tax base. The Council will <br />sit down to discuss the matter as well as visiting some courts and checking statistics <br />from all sources. <br />Mr. L'Allier asked Mr. Summers if he would consider withdrawing the requests for <br />the other 2 parcels until the Council has finished their review or if he wished to <br />proceed anyway. Mr. Summers stated that everyone knows where the sites are and that <br />the Council can decide if they are suitable; he especially would like the parcel near <br />the Youth Center to be heard. There was some discussion on statistics, newspaper <br />articles, other types housing, taxes, State aid for roads, etc. <br />1 <br />