My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/12/2002 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
06/12/2002 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2014 4:10:09 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 1:07:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
06/12/2002
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.
/
62
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />May 8, 2002 <br />Page 8 <br />Staff indicated the applicant was proposing to construct a 25,568 square foot <br />office /warehouse building on the eastern one half of proposed Parcel F. Such building <br />placement would allow for a shared access with a future building upon adjacent Parcel G <br />to the west. Based on the building size and placement upon the lot, future building <br />expansion was not anticipated. <br />Staff noted the office /warehouse building measured 34 feet in height and conformed with <br />the maximum 45 -foot height requirement imposed in the L -I District. <br />Staff stated the building was to be finished in pre -cast concrete wall panels which <br />conformed to the standards in Section 3, Subdivision 4.B of the City Code. At this point, <br />the applicant was unsure of whether or not the building will be painted. If the building <br />was to be painted however, the applicant had indicated it would most likely be gray in <br />color. <br />Staff noted while the proposed building had been found to meet the material requirements <br />of the Code, the appearance of the building was considered soniewliat`stark and could <br />potentially be improved. To improve the appearance building, the following <br />modifications should be considered: <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />Recess or project building entrances, <br />Provide an entrance canopy or canopies <br />Introduce foundation plantings to ac+ entuate building entrances <br />Integrate varied but complementary colors or materials at building entry points <br />Paint of all or part of the building (i.e the building's horizontal band). <br />Staff explained the_s: <br />to Section 3, Sufi <br />stored within tl <br />yard) that w <br />rights of way. <br />slid not <br />US <br />e an exterior trash handling area. According <br />nance l'refuse and recyclable materials must be <br />or within an accessory structure (within a side or rear <br />eye level view from neighboring uses and public <br />principal but <br />tally screened <br />Staff stated if trash and rec lanlle materials were to be stored outdoors, they must be <br />located within a side or re a yrd and screened by a fence or wall at least six feet in <br />height with a minimum opaqueness of 80 percent. <br />Staff noted if trash was to be stored outdoors, the site plan should be modified to <br />illustrate the proposed trash handling area and elevations of the enclosures should be <br />submitted prior to City Council consideration of the application. <br />Staff explained neither the site plan nor building elevations illustrated any signage. <br />Signage was governed by the City's sign ordinance and separate permits and required a <br />separate permit. All signs would be reviewed with the sign permit applications and must <br />satisfy applicable requirements of the Ordinance in regard to sign type size and location. <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.