Laserfiche WebLink
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 /> Mr. March questioned the size and valuation of the buiiding 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 /> 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 /> Mr. Sadeline thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for its time. <br /> IV. OLD BUSINESS <br /> None. <br /> V. NEW BUSINESS � <br /> 1. Schlavin Variance Request I � <br /> I <br /> i <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 /> i <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 /> 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 /> Chairperson Hanson invited Mr. Schlavin to the work session on Tuesday, November 21, <br /> 2000, at 6:30 p.m. <br /> 2. Ground Development PUD <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 properiy at some point. <br /> Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the issue is whether the plan of the <br /> developer meets the requirements of a PUD. <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 />