My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/05/2003 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2003
>
03/05/2003 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2015 1:57:10 PM
Creation date
2/6/2015 1:38:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
03/05/2003
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 5, 2003 <br />APPROVED <br />A dome would need a conditional use permit because of the height, as regulated <br />by Sec. 3, Subd. 4.C. on pages 3-16 to 3-17. In addition to those requirements, the <br />standard CUP requirements would apply (p 3-6). <br />Staff has spoken with the community development director in White Bear Lake <br />about the tennis dome there. Some people didn't like to see the glowing dome at <br />night. However, it did not cast light on other properties and there were no noise <br />or traffic issues. The issue of whether or not it needed a sprinkler system was <br />difficult. This is a building code issue to be determined by the building officials <br />and fire chief. <br />2. Gymnasiums, Dance Schools: We have been asked where these fit in. They <br />would be considered recreational businesses, which are allowed in the GB and LI <br />zones. <br />3. Pole Buildings: The confusing passage regarding the expansion of pole buildings <br />has been completely deleted (p 3-15). Commercial/industrial buildings must now <br />meet the requirements on page 3-14. <br />4. Exterior Storage on Residential Lot: The exterior storage of personal property is <br />adequately addressed in the ordinance, on page 3-36. Little has changed from the <br />existing ordinance. This item has been discussed with the City Attorney, and it is <br />staff's opinion that this passage covers the issue. <br />Community Development Director Grochala stated the issue of Motor Vehicle Parking in <br />Residential and Rural Zoning Districts also has to be discussed. <br />Councilmember Carlson stated she is concerned about there not being a limit on the <br />number of vehicles in rural districts great than 2 1/2 acres. She stated there does need to be <br />a limit <br />Community Development Director Grochala advised in the old ordinance there were no <br />restrictions whatsoever in rural district. The 21/2 acres was an addition. <br />Planning Associate Brixius suggested language that could be added to the ordinance to <br />eliminate the concern regarding motor vehicle parking. <br />The Council directed staff to change the language from the 21/2 acres to 10 acres with a <br />limit of two vehicles to rural districts and one vehicle to residential districts. <br />Councilmember Carlson reviewed the draft ordinance and asked for clarification in regard <br />to her questions about several issues. <br />• Staff made the appropriate changes and indicated more information will be included in <br />the Friday update. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.