04/10/2024 PZ Combined Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2024 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public Hearing 440 Park Court (Lino Lakes Tech Center & Storage Facility) Ms. Larsen presented the staff report. The applicant, Lariat Companies, Inc., submitted a land use application for conditional use permit and site & building plan review. The development proposes a 36,000 sf multi-tenant industrial and indoor self-storage building on the south half of the property located at 440 Park Court. The north half of the site is the existing Lino Lakes Storage. After reviewing the staff report, Ms. Larsen asked the Board for feedback regarding the name of the building. She stated there was some conversation at the City Council work session and wanted to know the opinion of the Board. Mr. Wipperfurth felt they could name the company what they wanted to. Mr. Wipperfurth questioned who would make the decision when deferred parking stalls are needed. Ms. Larsen said according to the ordinance, the Director of Community Development would make those decisions. Mr. Wipperfurth expressed concern over the lack of parking stalls for this size building. He also wanted to determine if a fence could be included in the conditional use permit. Ms. Larsen stated that would require a variance and would not be permissible during this process. Mr. Wipperfurth thought the building should be shielded more than it is now. Ms. Larsen said the berm and the landscaping will act as a screen. Mr. Kohler asked if the two buildings that are on the property could be split into two businesses. Ms. Larsen said it would need to be approved through the City. Mr. Kohler was concerned about the lack of space for tractor and trailer deliveries. Ms. Larsen stated that the fire department viewed the turn radius and was satisfied with it. Mr. Vojtech also questioned the traffic on the property and did not think there were enough parking spaces. Ms. Larsen stated they meet the minimum requirements and that if the Board feels like there is too much congestion near the three bays, they can add to their motion to remove them. Mr. Laden questioned why the fence was allowed on the first part of the development but not this one. Ms. Larsen confirmed the fence’s location and position. Mr. Laden also wanted to know if the berm they will be installing will be better than the current one. Ms. Larsen verified the requirement to achieve a full six foot high screen with trees and plants. Mr. Laden questioned if they met the minimum standards for building materials and suggested he was seeking higher architectural standards for the main areas of the City. Ideally, he would like it to be addressed before receiving more comp plans and would like it addressed by City Council. Ms. Larsen stated we had some corrections to the Zoning Ordinance and it could be added at that time. Mr. Laden also provided feedback