My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/12/2011 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2011
>
10/12/2011 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2014 11:44:01 AM
Creation date
6/25/2014 9:04:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
10/12/2011
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.
/
24
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 />ordinance, statute, resolution, or regulation, the regulations which are <br />more restrictive, or which impose higher standards or requirements <br />shall prevail. <br />The CUP language will remain in the ordinance that states that no <br />outdoor storage can occur on properties adjacent to residential <br />properties or the freeway, staff finds this in conflict with the Interim Use <br />Permit language as proposed. <br />4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and <br />will not overburden the City's service capacity. <br />As the proposed use would be accessory to an existing use, on a <br />developed site, the proposed use will not overburden the city's service <br />capacity. <br />5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving <br />the property. <br />The site is currently served and developed for industrial use and <br />therefore the traffic generation of the site is within the capabilities of <br />the surrounding street system. <br />Recommendation <br />In addition to the findings included above, staff has identified 5 additional reasons why <br />this request carries a staff recommendation for denial: <br />1. Location — while there are many properties within the city that are zoned Light <br />Industrial, only a handful of those properties are adjacent to residential or rural <br />properties. As such, prohibiting exterior storage on properties in such a situation <br />is not prohibiting that use from the city, but rather keeping it consistent with the <br />surrounding area. <br />2. Screening — while fencing may reduce the actual storage activity visually, it <br />cannot do so for noise. The noise of vehicles moving product (any kind of <br />product) would have a negative impact on the surrounding homeowners. <br />Additionally, fencing may fall short of a visual screen if adjacent properties are at <br />a higher elevation. <br />3. Aesthetics — the first impression of the city is often drawn from the perspective of <br />35W and 35E. A long expanse of fencing will not allow visitors and residents to <br />see the strides taken by staff, boardmembers and council in enforcing stricter <br />development standards and raising the bar on industrial and commercial <br />development. Outdoor uses along freeways may lead to high quality <br />developments avoiding those portions of the city. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.