Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Carter requested clarification on the location of the proposed mini-storage facility. <br />Mr. Sager stated that it would be located on the east side of the industrial park property. <br />Mr. Carter stated that he would prefer a mini-storage facility to an apartment complex or <br />some industrial use that would generate a lot of traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. March questioned the size and valuation of the building that was being proposed. <br />Mr. Sadeline stated that he did not have the exact dimensions at this time but would <br />forward them to the Commission in the near future. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeVine stated that the size and valuation of the building would weigh <br />heavily on his decision on whether or not to grant the request to build a mini-storage <br />facility. <br /> <br />Mr. Sadeline thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for its time. <br /> <br />IV. OLD BUSINESS <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />V. NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />I. Schlavin Variance Request <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson questioned whether Mr. Schlavin had a sign on the exterior of his <br />home/office. Mr. Schlavin stated that a sign is installed in his front yard, but not on the <br />home/office. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeVine stated that Mr. Schlavin's situation was unique; it did not fit the <br />requirements for granting a variance. Commissioner DeVine suggested that Mr. Schlavin <br />bring his tax statement to the next work session scheduled. <br /> <br />Mr. Schlavin stated that he is researching various avenues for his property, including <br />obtaining a variance for a larger sign and possibly moving out of the residence and <br />converting the building to a commercial use, allowing him to rent out part of the space. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson invited Mr. Schlavin to the work session on Tuesday, November 21, <br />2000, at 6:30 p.m. <br /> <br />2. Ground Development PUD <br /> <br />Commissioner McLean stated that Ground Development had done a good job of <br />addressing the concerns of the City and residents with the revised plan. Commissioner <br />McLean also stated that whether or not this development is approved, there would be a <br />development on that property at some point. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the issue IS whether the plan of the <br />developer meets the requirements of a PUD. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brainard stated that since the plan of the developer did not meet the <br />requirements of the PUD, the Commission had no choice but to deny their request. <br />