My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/08/1995 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
1995
>
11/08/1995 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 10:31:39 AM
Creation date
7/16/2014 12:20:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
11/08/1995
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.
/
10
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 />NOVEMBER 8, 1995 <br />e' The site plan is modified to illustrate <br />exterior lighting locations. All lighting <br />shall be hooded and directed so as not to <br />infringe on neighboring residential uses and <br />public rights -of -way. <br />f. If any new signage is to be erected, a sign <br />plan is submitted which specifies the location, <br />type and size of all proposed signs. All site <br />signage shall be required to comply with <br />applicable provisions of the City Sign <br />Ordinance. <br />The submitted grading and drainage plan is <br />subject to review and approval by the City <br />Engineer. Such review should specifically <br />address the need for drainage easement <br />establishment over the site's ponding area. <br />The applicant shall be required to demonstrate <br />that the proposed development will have no <br />wetland impact. <br />h. The submitted utility plan is subject to review <br />and approval by the City Engineer. Such review <br />should specifically address details relating to <br />septic system removal and well capping. <br />i'. The City Engineer and Anoka County Highway <br />Department provide comment in regard to the <br />proposed roadway easement acceptability. <br />j. The applicant demonstrate, through the <br />submission of a building elevation(s) that the <br />proposed accessory building complies with R -1 <br />District height requirements (16 feet). <br />k. The proposed accessory building is finished in <br />materials judged by the City Building Inspector <br />to be compatible with the site's principal <br />structure. <br />1. Comments from other City staff. <br />Mr. Kirmis also noted recommended approval of a variance <br />to allow an accessory storage building within an R -1 <br />zoning district to exceed 1,100 square feet in size <br />subject to the following conditions: <br />a. The City directed staff to pursue an ordinance <br />amendment which addressed the greater accessory <br />building needs of non - residential use (i.e. <br />churches, parks, golf courses, schools, etc.) <br />allowed in residential zoning districts. <br />b. Comments of other City staff. <br />Mr. Mesich expressed concern for allowing a variance, he <br />inquired if the Board is required to establish all the <br />six findings in regard to the variance approval. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.