1998-08-04 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Ms. Pam Neulkenes (7054 Cottonwood Court) asked what guarantees do the property owners have that in the future the gymnasium will not be converted into an industrial building. The Commission replied there are no guarantees. Mr. Watson stressed a desire to obtain a building permit to ensure the business will be in operation by September 1998. Mr. Buckbee moved to recommend to the Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Starfire Gymnastics be permitted within the uses of that district and that they m y 'roc- - I h. t a Ili he.rin• for . .e ial e . -rmit. Moti.n - .n.ed b Ms. Br. .r.- Vickers. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Brossard - Vickers moved to recommend the preliminary sketch plan is approved with special attention to landscaping (to mitigate the west side of the property) and suggested the engineer work with the drainage issue. Motion seconded by Mr. Buckbee. Motion carried unanimously, Ac tion on Lessard Rezone Request The Commission further discussed the Lessard rezone request. Mr. Buckbee commented traffic will increase with more homes and suggested leaving the property zoning as is, commercial and residential. Mr. Lessard explained a blend of doctors offices, dentists offices and/or business offices will make a nice transition between the residential and commercial zones. Mr. Buckbee suggested Mr. Lessard return to the Commission with an idea of how he would like the property to develop. Ms. Brossard- Vickers commented she would like to research the legal guidelines and explore why and how the property was and is zoned. Mr. Lessard stated he will sign a 60 -day rezone waiver form. Mr. Nyberg commented Eagle Pass is a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and suggested Lake Area Utilities land be developed as a PUD. Furthermore, the City's intention is to connect Eagle Trail to Brain Drive. Mr. Buckbee moved to table the Lessard rezone request until the July 7. 1998 Planning Commission meeting and to direct staff to renotify the si'rr un ink property owners the issues will be revisited. Motion seconded by Ms. Brossard- Vickers. Motion carried unanimously. Action of Stevens (Greene) Lot Split Request Mr. March briefed the Commission on flood plain regulations pertaining to Stevens lot split request. Mr. March discussed City ordinance #33 - Flood Plain; in summary, a structure cannot be built within the flood way. Mr. Palzer commented the state law states, in order to approve a lot split within the flood way the site must provide a building site outside of the flood way. Mr. March said the proposed lot will not have an area for constructing a building outside of the flood way. In any case, the city has authority to grant a variance to its own ordinance, but not to state laws. However, the property owner can apply for an amendment to FEMA for a map amendment. The City is restricted and cannot approve a lot split based on the information 7