My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-23-2006 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
08-23-2006 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2012 1:31:29 PM
Creation date
3/19/2012 1:25:22 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
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
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. <br />4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 <br />Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.com <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Little Canada Planning Commission <br />FROM: Stephen Grittman /Kimberly Holien <br />DATE: August 7, 2006 <br />SUBJECT: Little Canada - Light Industrial District Building Materials <br />CASE NO: 758.10 - 06.05 <br />INTRODUCTION <br />As a part of the review of the zoning ordinance, the issue of building materials was <br />discussed, particularly in the 1 -1, Light Industrial District and the allowance for metal <br />buildings. During that discussion, it was noted that construction methods have evolved <br />to make construction in areas of poor soils more feasible than in the past. It was also <br />noted that at the current time, there are portions of the City's 1 -1 zoned areas that are <br />not subject to poor soils in any event, and that it may be time to consider an upgrade to <br />the City's building materials requirements in that district. Toward that end, the City <br />Council enacted a moratorium on the construction of metal buildings, pending the <br />outcome of this study and subsequent amendments to the zoning ordinance. <br />The following material has been collected to provide context for the Planning <br />Commission's discussion of this item. The cities surveyed are representative of many <br />other Twin Cities communities. In summary, there are two main ways of dealing with <br />the potential for metal buildings, with some occasional variations. The first is an outright <br />prohibition, basically requiring a full masonry and glass exterior. In most of these <br />ordinances, metal is allowed as an accent material, but not as a significant component <br />of the side wall. The second category is to allow for metal buildings as an accessory <br />storage building option, but not as a part of the principal building. For most of these <br />communities, the storage building must be located in the rear yard, and usually must be <br />screened in some manner. <br />The purpose of this initial review is to develop a consensus on as many issues as <br />possible. Staff will then be providing a draft ordinance for consideration at the <br />Commission's September meeting. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.