My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/08/2000 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2000
>
11/08/2000 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2014 2:23:47 PM
Creation date
7/1/2014 8:54:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
11/08/2000
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.
/
41
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 />October 11, 2000 <br />Page 7 <br />facility on the site. The company will also conduct repackaging of the product into <br />different size containers on site as well as distribution. The product is polyester resins, <br />fiberglass, and related products. Staff presented their analysis of the site and building <br />plan review. <br />Staff advised the Environmental Board reviewed the project on September 27, 2000. <br />Recommendations included attention to infiltration in stormwater design, use of native <br />species in the landscaping plan, assurance that lighting will be directed downward, and <br />attention to soil compaction when possible. Infiltration will be designed in to the extent <br />possible. Native seeds are included. Lighting will be directed downwards. The issues <br />will be addressed with a revised landscaping plan to be reviewed by the Environmental <br />Specialist. <br />Staff recommended approval of the site plan based on conditions listed in the report and <br />adding the following: <br />10. Park dedication per City policy. <br />11. Minor subdivision shall be as shown on sub <br />including easements. <br />d sketch and description <br />Acting Chair Lane inquired about trash ands . Staff referred to the landscaping <br />plan indicating the trash container. <br />Mr. Johnson referred to elevation. <br />least interesting. The City of Lino <br />backs along the freeway. The plai <br />He asked if something more <br />H ate most visual part of the building is the <br />doing itself a service with the building <br />acks give a negative impression of the City. <br />be done. <br />Staff advised that is one of the the City is recognizing more and more. It is always <br />difficult to require more decoratio when the City does not have standards in place and <br />there are already buildings there. In parts of the City, the City will be pushing for more <br />aesthetically pleasing architecture in the future. Currently the City is trying to address <br />that issue with landscaping. <br />Mr. Corson stated the previous application required more park dedication. He inquired <br />about the process used for park dedication. Staff advised park dedication depends on a <br />ratio in the ordinance. There are two different types of commercial dedication based on <br />the ratio of employees to square footage. <br />Mr. Corson advised the City of Woodbury uses a park dedication fee of $3,000 per acre. <br />He asked if the City has looked at what other cities use for park dedication. Staff advised <br />the City is looking at revisions of the current park dedication ordinance. <br />Acting Chair Lane asked if the applicant is comfortable with the two additional <br />conditions of approval. The applicant indicated he is comfortable with the additional <br />conditions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.