Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />June 12, 2002 <br />Page 7 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Staff noted the applicant had elected to cons truct a fence for screening purposes, and City <br />Ordinance required “such a fence shall provide a solid screening effect six feet in height.” <br />Staff recommended a condition requiring that such a fence be extended to the north to <br />screen all proposed and future parking expans ion areas, as current plans do not show the <br />proposed fence extending along the entire area of parking. In addition, Staff stated the <br />applicant had provided some additional landscapi ng in an attempt to soften the effect of <br />the fence, as City Ordinance directed “e xposed fences shall run a maximum length of <br />fifty feet between landscapi ng areas or clusters” (Sec. 3.s ubd. 4.S.5.e.2.b). At this time <br />plans showed the fence located on the lot line, with landscaping located on the church <br />side of the fence. <br />Staff indicated the current la ndscape plan showed some trees within ponding and drain <br />field areas and the Environmental Board had recommended such trees be moved to <br />appropriate areas. The Board also recomme nded consideration of alternate tree species <br />choices, which were described in the me mo from Environmental Specialist Marty <br />Asleson. In addition, the Board had reco mmended that a tree inventory and tree <br />preservation plan be submitted for the site. <br />Staff noted plans showed a 13’ X 10’ trash en closure located at the northern end of the <br />parking area. The enclosure was 6’-8” high a nd constructed of conc rete block painted to <br />match the principle building color. <br />With respect to signage, staff stated no signage plans had yet been submitted. The Lino <br />Lakes Sign Ordinance limits institutional signage in the Rural zone in the following <br />ways: maximum of 32-square feet of signage area; a maximum of 8 feet high; no closer <br />than 10 feet to any property line. <br />Staff noted there would be no park dedicati on fee required. There are no trails planned <br />for the north side of Ash Street. <br />Staff stated there are a number of engin eering issues that remain incomplete or <br />unresolved, per City Engineer Jim Studens ki; the memo dated June 7, 2002, detailed <br />these concerns. All engineering issues are to be resolved to the satisfaction of the City <br />Engineer prior to a ny City Council review. <br />Staff indicated Rice Creek Watershed District had issued a TWAFFA for this project, <br />pending completion of five administrative items. <br />Staff noted the Environmental Board review ed this application at their May 29, 2002, <br />meeting and recommended approval with some changes; the Memo from Marty Asleson <br />dated June 6, 2002, detailed these changes. In general, recommended changes center <br />around the following: <br />1.) Submit a tree inventory a nd tree preservation plan. <br />2.) Increase infiltration and storm water pr actices, particularly around parking areas. <br />3.) Alter tree choices, and move some tr ees out of water infiltration areas. <br />4.) Use of green parking in futu re parking expansion areas.