Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1996 <br />7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create <br />traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. <br />8. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of <br />major importance. <br />9. Will conform to specific standards of this Ordinance applicable to the particular use. <br />Mr. Brixius explained that in previous consideration of this project and approval of the first <br />phase it was basically established that the proposed use is acceptable at its proposed location, <br />and will not negatively impact the area. In this regard, proposed Phase II satisfies the <br />aforementioned conditional use permit evaluation criteria. <br />Mr. Brixius detailed the shoreland density requirements based on the City's current shoreland <br />management requirements. He also reviewed for the City Council the site plan, building <br />elevations, setbacks, landscaping, parking, snow storage, parks, grading, drainage and <br />utilities, restrictives, and covenants. <br />Mr. Brixius said that based on the preceding review, he recommended approval of the <br />requested planned development overlay (PDO) subject to the conditions listed in the <br />executive summary of the report. <br />Council Member Bergeson asked if adding these additional units places additional <br />restrictions on development of the corner pieces in terms of impervious surface. Mr. Brixius <br />said that if the City does not give consideration to changing the PDO and impervious surface <br />requirement under the storm water management portion of the PDO, yes it would. <br />Council Member Bergeson asked if all of the property is owned by the developer. Mr. <br />Brixius said that it is all owned by the developer. Council Member Bergeson indicated that <br />he believed one parcel was not owned by the developer. Mr. Brixius agreed, and pointed out <br />a parcel that is not part of the site. Council Member Bergeson asked if improving the site <br />would result in diminishing the value of any other property. Mr. Brixius responded no. <br />Council Member Lyden asked to revisit the shoreland ordinance, "tightening it up" in some <br />respects. <br />Mr. Brixius pointed out the basis for the flexibility being sought, and offered copies of this <br />information to all Council members. <br />Mayor Landers stated that a certain percentage of the first phase of a development must be <br />completed prior to action regarding subsequent phases. Mr. Brixius agreed, but stated that <br />site plan approval is the basis for this request, and delay will not have impact. <br />Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the conditional use permit requested by <br />Hokanson Development subject to the conditions outlined above. Council Member Lyden <br />seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Request, Otter Lake Animal Clinic, <br />Wayne Scanlan, 6848 Otter Lake Road - Ms. Wyland stated that Dr. Scanlan received <br />approval of a conditional use permit in July of 1986 for the initial construction of this <br />veterinary clinic and boarding facility. At that time Dr. Scanlan constructed a pole barn <br />structure for clinic use, and at this time would like to expand that structure by 50%, for a total <br />