My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/11/2005 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2005
>
05/11/2005 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2014 2:46:48 PM
Creation date
6/19/2014 10:22:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
05/11/2005
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.
/
81
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 />Planning & Zoning Board <br />April 13, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br />developed at a later date if needed. Mr. Bengtson replied if they put in the number <br />required at this time and this developed out, it would be reaching its capacity and if they <br />then figured in a couple more restaurants, that would increase the parking requirements to <br />the point where they might not be able to meet that demand. He stated there was also the <br />issue of tying this into the other parcels on the west and the possibility of losing some <br />parking spots there as well. He noted minimal parking might not be a good idea at this <br />time not knowing who the tenants were going to be and what the usage was going to be. <br />He noted, however, the Board could make minimal parking as a recommendation. <br />Mr. Laden asked why a future secondary access was not marked on the plat. Mr. <br />Bengtson replied the properties to the west were not designated as commercial <br />development and to show some kind of a connection would be planning for the future <br />that this would be commercial and staff did not have that authority. He indicated this was <br />not something they wanted to insinuate. <br />Mr. Laden stated he believed they should show a secondary access because of the size of <br />the development and they should plan for a second access now. Mr. Bengtson replied <br />that could be explored and added in the future. <br />Mr. Laden asked if it was not shown on the plat, could it be on the Development <br />Agreement. Mr. Bengtson replied they could do that or put it on the site design <br />standards. <br />Mr. Smyser pointed out that Anoka County would have to approve any access points <br />also. <br />Mr. Root asked if the pylon sign was accurate. Mr. Bengtson replied the sign was what <br />they were proposing to do. <br />Mr. Root asked if the landscape lighting was downcast lighting. Mr. Bengtson replied <br />the applicant was proposing some upward landscape lighting, which has been allowed in <br />the past, but there would not be upward lighting on the building. <br />Mr. Root asked how bright the lights would be. Mr. Bengtson responded the lights would <br />not be that bright. <br />Mr. Root asked if the building itself was 45 feet with architectural features of 10 feet. <br />Mr. Smyser suggested they put aside design questions right now and he would give a <br />presentation of the design features. <br />Mr. Root agreed with Mr. Laden that they needed to have an additional access to this <br />property. <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if the treated wood fence was a requirement, or was it the developer's <br />suggestions. Mr. Bengtson replied the City required screening either through landscaping <br />with 80 percent opacity, or a 6 -foot solid fence. He indicated the applicant requested the <br />solid fence, which met the zoning requirements. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.