My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/12/2005 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2005
>
10/12/2005 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2014 1:25:38 PM
Creation date
6/20/2014 10:34:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
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.
/
94
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 />September 14, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he believed they would see the color differential once it was on the <br />large building. <br />Mr. Nelson stated he would support the opinion of the professional architect. <br />Mr. Tralle asked if the color on the top cornice was different than the columns. Mr. <br />Bengston replied he believed that was a shadowing technique on the rendering and it was <br />intended to be the same color as the columns. Mr. Tralle noted he liked the effect. <br />Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. <br />Craig Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, Lino Lakes, stated size and distance will give the <br />proposed colors definition. <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he understood why they were not putting brick on the bottom, but he <br />would like to see brick on the base. He noted a brick base would not get damaged with <br />lawn care and snow removal. He indicated it was better maintenance to have brick and it <br />would keep the building looking good. <br />Mr. Piette believed they were a step above any "shoddy" construction techniques. He <br />stated the quality of the building was top notch, with different colors and textures. He <br />noted their position was that they trusted the manufacturer that the base is a solid <br />construction technique and they had used the product many times in the past. <br />Mr. Pogalz stated stucco looked great in many colors, but he still would prefer brick. He <br />stated if they were not willing to go more than three feet on the base, he would prefer the <br />base was not put in at all because he believed the landscaping would cover up the base <br />eventually anyway. He recommended they put more money into the landscaping. <br />Mr. Piette stated he would also like to have brick on the building, but in reality, he did <br />not believe the numbers would come in favorable to putting brick on the building. <br />Chair Rafferty stated the signal the Board was sending was that they did not want three <br />feet in the base size. He believed the base product should include a thick skin as a <br />protector, which would be a stronger product. He asked them to look into this <br />suggestion. <br />Mr. Tralle asked if they had met with Mr. and Mrs. Partridge regarding the fencing. Mr. <br />Piette stated they had met with them and he went out on the property to show them where <br />the fence would be located. He noted the Partridge's kitchen window was over 120 feet <br />from the proposed fence. He stated they were still talking with them about this and it was <br />an ongoing discussion. He indicated he was willing to work with them to get their issues <br />resolved. <br />Chair Rafferty stated he did not understand where the extra 20 parking stalls would be <br />put in. Mr. Piette replied they were working with staff on this. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.