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