My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/08/2006 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2006
>
02/08/2006 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2014 12:37:14 PM
Creation date
6/20/2014 1:53:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
02/08/2006
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.
/
38
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 />December 14, 2005 <br />Page 7 <br />Mr. Rafferty wondered if it is necessary to give them all of the proposed land. Mr. <br />Grochala remarked that the city is encumbering some of the land for conservation <br />easements in order to avoid taking down all of the trees. The city has preserved some <br />existing park for a park/playground area, and would like that maintained. Typically, a <br />YMCA facility would like a nine to ten acre area, and we have limited them to 6.7 acres, <br />which includes a shared parking lot. There is no excess land that could be used <br />elsewhere. <br />Mr. Root asked staff if the use of metal conflicted with the requirements of the Town <br />Center Design Standards. He pointed out that the guide does not specifically refer to the <br />use of metal. He asked if metal siding was an appropriate use, as it is not one of the <br />materials listed. Mr. Bengtson replied that it is not specifically stated that metal is <br />prohibited in the town center area. Staffs interpretation is that metal is not prohibited, <br />and that the product they are proposing does provide a contrasting material to <br />appropriately move from concrete panel to brick facade. The board could interpret the <br />standards otherwise if they so choose. <br />With no further comments, Mr. Rafferty thanked Mr. Staley and Ms. Manion for <br />attending the meeting. <br />The board requested that Condition No. 11 be amended to require fifteen bicycles instead <br />of five. <br />The board requested that Condition No. 13 be amended to state that trash enclosures be <br />attached to the main building. <br />The board requested that a condition be added to include striping the pavement in the <br />pedestrian walk areas of the parking lot, with a preference of a material change to <br />designate the walk areas. <br />Mr. Laden pointed out that if a parking lot is over a certain size, there is a requirement to <br />change material. Though this does not meet size requirements, he would like to see <br />consistency. <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if striping the parking lot would be part of the YMCA's responsibility. <br />Mr. Bengtson replied that the parking lot is part of the YMCA's improvements, so it <br />would be appropriate for the board to add this condition. <br />Mr. Tralle asked about the stone cap on the brick face, and what was the material on the <br />cap over the galvanized area. Ms. Manion replied that was a metal cornice. She <br />described that there will be a relief to create a deep shadow line to create dimension. She <br />noted it is of a sizeable depth that will be visible. <br />Mr. Rafferty referred to the paving requirements on Page 33 of the Design Standards <br />guidelines. Mr. Bengtson stated that he believes those standards are for specifically <br />designated connecting walkways. This area is not specifically designated as such. The <br />board pointed out the two areas that they consider to be designated walkways by nature <br />of their being. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.