My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/12/2005 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2005
>
10/12/2005 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2014 4:25:27 PM
Creation date
4/7/2014 4:25:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
10/12/2005
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.
/
18
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 12, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />changed in those guidelines. They had reco mmended approval of an amendment as a use <br />and at the time it was written, it was not ta ken into account where it was located as well <br />as how it would be implemented in a commercia l area. This directly lead to why it was <br />not meeting the exact letter of the guidelines, but it was meeting the intent. It should also <br />be noted that this would keep the streetscap e balanced with the residential project that <br />would be developed across Town Center Parkway. <br /> <br />Mr. Root stated when they did these types of changes, it was precedent setting so they <br />wanted to be clear if they were varying from what the gui delines were saying they had a <br />good reason. He stated it was important to know what the downstream effects were <br />going to be. <br /> <br />Mr. Root inquired about the ar chitectural feature on the one corner of the building and <br />asked what would be appropria te there. Mr. Bengtson responded this was one of the <br />comments at the last P&Z meeting. As staff, we feel that the masonry materials, which <br />drew the attention to the center of the build ing, as well as the porch provided a fairly <br />substantial architectural featur e. He stated that they en couraged the developer to do <br />more, as the board’s comments from the September meeting had asked. He stated this <br />was up to the Board to decide, but as staff they felt the proposal met the standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle asked why they wanted the front facing the freeway and to have the back door <br />into the City. He noted this was the same th ing they did with Ryan where they wanted to <br />put the strip mall in and the entire back of th e building faced the main part of town and he <br />did not like this. He indicated the front of th e building should be faci ng into the City. He <br />believed this was backwards. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated it was important to stick to the original inte nt of the project. He asked <br />what was on the east side of the hotel. Mr. Bengtson responded that the property east of <br />this site was within a commercial district and early indications are th at it would be best <br />suited for an office type use. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if the office buildings we re within the build-to portion of the <br />development. Mr. Bengtson responded there was a 50 percent build to line required on <br />the property east of the proposed hotel site. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated he believed he could accept the 15-foot mark, but nothing greater than <br />that, but he was concerned that even t hough it was a commercial use, it was a very <br />residential strip in an area that was intende d to be commercial and stated it made sense <br />that the hotel have commercial on the first floor with hotel on the remainder. He stated <br />this proposal fell short. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he appr eciated the developer going back to the drawing board, but <br />he was looking at this as the fi rst phase of a project trying to be approved. He stated the <br />strength in the idea and concept of what the City was proposing and in a hotel going <br />forward was clearly indicated by the Board. It was was something that should be allowed <br />and that was the reason they gave their re commendation that this move forward to <br />Council. He stated he did not like the shingled roof and the trash enclosure. He stated
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.