My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/12/1999 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1999
>
04/12/1999 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/2/2015 2:53:41 PM
Creation date
2/2/2015 1:53:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
04/12/1999
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12,1999 <br />Ordinance No. 06 - 99 is a request to vacate the roads and easements originally platted in 1980 as <br />a part of the Arborlake Plat. That plat was abandoned and replatted as Otter Bay in 1987 but the <br />original roadways and easements of Arborlake were never vacated. <br />Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 06 - <br />99, as presented. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. <br />Council Member Bergeson voted yes. Council Member Dahl voted yes. Council Member <br />Lyden voted yes. Council Member Neal voted yes. Mayor Sullivan voted yes. <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />Ordinance No. 06 - 99 can be found at the end of these minutes. <br />Consideration of Fogerty Investment, 524 Apollo Drive, Rezone from,GB, General <br />Business, to PDO/Light Industrial, Jeff Smyser - Mr. Smyser stated Fogerty. Investments has <br />submitted an application for a Planned Development Overlay forlitiustra. es on this site. <br />The current applications include the rezoning to PDO, and the PDO development plan. The <br />reason a PDO is needed is that there will be more than one wilding on a lot, the preliminary and <br />final PDO development are being combined into one. <br />Mr. Smyser noted that future subdivisiottyf the site will need to undergo a separate subdivision <br />review process. <br />Mr. Wessel added that dural <br />be left as General Buil <br />July, 1996. The Distr <br />ier meeting, Council Member Lyden requested building C <br />as a buffer. He noted that the clinic site was approved in <br />ng plan was approved in June, 1997. <br />Mr. Powell stated that egmenting building C would raise issues concerning a joint access with <br />the clinic or buil tiigs A%B/D. It is more efficient and cost effective to put in utilities all at the <br />same time. Drainage would also be a concern relation to segmenting building C. <br />Mr. Smyser stated he is very leery against the practice of splitting the lot with a zoning line. If <br />the lot were segmented, a small area would be left that will be hard to develop. He stated that he <br />does not believe the intensity of the difference in zoning between General Business and Light <br />Industrial is large enough. Mr. Smyser read a passage from the Zoning Ordinance regarding the <br />health hazards, traffic, noise, glare, fumes, and hazardous materials. He noted that parking could <br />be an issue. However, retail parking requires more parking stalls than industrial. <br />Ms. Divine stated that from an economic development perspective staff is concerned that both <br />the clinic and Mr. Fogerty are successful. She stated that the compromise of removing building <br />C is not a large enough benefit to the clinic. If building C is segmented, the area would be <br />opened up to truck traffic. She stated Mr. Fogerty's buildings are very nice looking and quiet. <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.