My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/12/1995 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
1995
>
07/12/1995 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2017 9:57:34 AM
Creation date
7/7/2017 9:49:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
07/12/1995
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
4. Elevator Penthouse. <br />5. Cooling Towers. <br />6. Flag Poles. <br />7. Utility poles for essential services. <br />8. Radio, television antenna and satellite dishes. <br />9. Wind energy conversion devices. <br />10. Church steeples and spires. <br />Subd. 10 - 14. Setbacks and Permitted Encroachment <br />These sections of the existing Ordinance should be a sub -section of the City's Section 8, yard <br />Requirements. <br />Subd. 11. Zero Lot Lines <br />Side and rear setbacks are confusing in its process and application. <br />1. This requirement doubles the perimeter setback requirements along adjacent lots. This <br />increased setback is questionable in that the use of zero lot line setback design by the <br />increased setback. <br />2. The use of zero lot line is only allowed as part of a larger planned development. Is the <br />City requiring a PDO for such a development? The provision does on to say that the zero <br />lot line is only permitted through the issuance of a CUP. This is confusing in the required <br />application. <br />Subd. 12. Setback Adjacent to Residential Areas <br />We question the purpose of the provision when the zoning district defines the setbacks. <br />Subd. 13. Setbacks Along Thoroughfares <br />This section establishes specific setback requirements from certain street classifications. The 100 <br />foot required setback from centerline is not cited in the specific zoning districts. <br />Subd. 14. Permitted Encroachment <br />The structure and format of Subd. 14, Permitted Encroachments, is confusing in the way it <br />addresses various unrelated topics and its presentation of information. We offer the following <br />comments: <br />Provision 1. We should examine how we would like to accommodate the encroachment of <br />parking stalls in required yards. Some setback would be appropriate. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.