My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/13/2005 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2005
>
04/13/2005 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2014 4:21:44 PM
Creation date
4/7/2014 4:21:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
04/13/2005
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.
/
27
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
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />A p r il 13 , 200 5 <br />Page 12 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Under the new zoning ordinance, the site plan review is done administratively. However, <br />a Conditional Use Permit amendment is necessary, and a site plan review is part of the <br />CUP review. <br /> <br />Because this application invol ves the CUP amendment, it is also appropriate to review <br />the conditions placed on the site thro ugh the last CUP amendment in 1999. <br /> <br />Staff was recommending approval subj ect to the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. Construction must comply with the requirements of the Centennial Fire <br />Department, including the connection of th e existing buildings to municipal water <br />for fire sprinkling. <br />2. A performance agreement between the City and the developer must be executed <br />prior to the issuance of any building permits for the subject site. <br />3. A lighting plan in conformance with the zoning code must be submitted for <br />review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of building permits. <br />4. The proposed addition is subject to double permit fees as construction was begun <br />to the issuance of any building permits. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if there was an existing awni ng. Mr. Bengtson repl ied there was not an <br />awning, but there might have been an overhang at some point in the past. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson stated he lived in this neighbor hood and he has had several people speak to <br />him about the lighting. He asked if they could review the lighting for the entire site under <br />this PUD. He expressed c oncern that this was not up to lighting code. Mr. Bengtson <br />replied the application before them was fo r the awning, but they could recommend that <br />staff investigate the lighting on site to ensu re it is in compliance with the previous <br />approvals, but to change what was approved in the past, was probably not something they <br />wanted to undertake with this request. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson stated he understood the business ha d been in existence for a long time and in <br />many cases, before the housing was there, but he believed the lighti ng did not meet Code <br />and it should be looked at. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked what was the use of the awni ng. Mr. Bengtson replied he was not sure <br />what the awning use was for, but it might be to cover the fuel tank. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty asked if this was for storage, wa s that an appropriate area for storage. He <br />asked if this was a negative to the neighbors to the north. Mr. Bengtson replied storage <br />would be more imposing than what was there now. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated he believed the Comprehens ive Plan addressed th is site as possibly <br />relocating. He asked if this was accurate a nd had there been any action on this. Mr. <br />Bengtson replied he was not familiar with that part of the Comprehensive Plan, but <br />because this was in a residentia l area, that was a possibility. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.