Laserfiche WebLink
were received and petitioner proceeded with the straight rezoning. Mr.Bragg stated that the City <br /> requires a buffer adjacent to a residential area. This is also required for B-2. The requirement is <br /> ten(10)percent of the lot width with a minimum of ten(10)feet and a maximum of 50 feet. <br /> Mr. Sharpe asked about the creek. Mr.Flynn stated that there is a creek, then trees to the north <br /> and the property line contains the creek so there is a natural buffer. <br /> Mr. Anderson stated that a landscaping business is great but he was concerned with the B-2 <br /> zoning. Mr. Flynn stated that he had appeared before the Plan Commission and City Council <br /> numerous times and that he was certain no one was present to object to this petition. <br /> Mr. Naber stated that at this time of year it is virtually impossible to see this property through the <br /> trees. If the Comprehensive Plan calls for light industrial on the other side of Mound Road it <br /> would seem that would be more objectionable than the request presented. <br /> Mr. Dunn stated that the past use as a swimming pool would have been noisy and the proposed <br /> use would have less noise with only a little bit of traffic. <br /> Mr. Nordholm stated that the existing Hucks a few blocks to the south is more intrusive than this. <br /> He stated that it is no different than Target which the Commission supported. Mr.Nordholm <br /> stated that the property is in need of maintenance and this is a positive proposal. He stated that if <br /> you go to worse case scenario it would not be any different than Hucks or Target. <br /> There were no objectors present. <br /> It was moved and seconded(Nordholm/Naber)to forward Cal. No. 03-26 to City Council with <br /> recommendation for approval as submitted by petitioner. Motion carried unanimously. <br />