07/09/1986 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

PLANNING & ZONING BOARD July 9, 1986 Page Five Construction, application number 86 -16, dated 4/25/86 with the following conditions: 1) The landscaping plan should include deciduous trees and sod which will be mowed and maintained in the space between the road and the parking area. 2) The issue of signage and lighting will be addressed at a later time. 3) The second building (planned for the future) is not included as part of this review and will be addressed at a later time. 4) The issue of the soil and water table is to be addressed by the City Engineer. 5) The driveway into the parking area should be 24' wide; the width of the parking area should be 64' wide; the distance between the parking lot and the proposed building should be 10'. Mrs. Averbeck seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The Board took a ten - minute break at this time. BUILDING STANDARDS - ZACK JOHNSON. Mr. Johnson reported that he has returned to the Planning and Zoning Board a revision of the proposed building standards relating to commercial and light industrial zones as requested at the last meeting and stated that the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed zoning ordinance change. Mr. Johnson handed out the building standard ordinances from several other communities and stated that the proposed ordinance, as outlined in his 7/9/86 memo entitled "Building Design Standards in Commercial and Industrial Districts" is more restrictive than the others, with the exception of Bloomington which is quite similar. He stated that his experience has been that applicants usually request pole type buildings (which will be prohibited under the proposed amendment) because they feel the building is cheaper, however he has learned that the difference in heating /cooling, insurance, etc. adds up to far more than the concrete type structures, thus maintenance eats up the initial savings. The consensus of the Board was that the pole type structure does not amount to enough valuation for taxing purposes to offset the service demands created by their existence and more importantly, they do not create the atmosphere that the Board wishes to see continue in Lino Lakes. Some Boardmembers felt that since the proposed amendment would be more restrictive than the surrounding communities with whom Lino Lakes competes for business development, that the City may experience a few "dry years" until the surrounding communities "catch up ".