Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />April 13, 2005 <br />Page 13 <br />Mr. Smyser replied this was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan as a possible <br />relocation in the future, but indicated the City did not actively do redevelopment such as <br />this. <br />Mr. Laden noted if this was in the Comprehensive Plan, shouldn't the City be looking at <br />this. Mr. Smyser replied this was a policy question the City Council would have to <br />decide. <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he assumed this would be used for storage and expressed concern that <br />at some point it would be enclosed, which would not meet Code. He asked what the <br />Building Code said with respect to this type of a structure. Mr. Bengtson replied the City <br />Building Inspector has looked at this and they had not raised any issues with respect to <br />the awning being attached to the building. <br />Mr. Nelson asked what else could be done about the spotlights on the top of the building <br />and not have them facing into the neighborhood. He asked what leverage did they have <br />with respect to this. <br />Chair Rafferty asked how long has this business been at this location. Mr. Smyser <br />replied he was not sure when it was first established, but it has been a long time. <br />Mr. Nelson asked when were the lights directed toward the neighborhood. He suggested <br />they be faced east instead. He stated he was not inclined to approve this without the <br />lighting issue being addressed. Mr. Bengtson replied he had spoken with the applicant <br />who indicated he would possibly be putting in parking lot lights in the future. He <br />suggested this be continued until applicant could be present to answer some of the <br />Board's concerns. <br />Chair Rafferty stated as far as the neighborhood directly to the south, he was concerned <br />that the business was there before the residents and the residents knew the business was <br />there and this could be an issue with attempting to force the applicant to do anything. He <br />agreed they should table this until applicant could be in attendance. He also expressed <br />concern that this would be used as storage. <br />Mr. Hyden agreed this should be continued until applicant to be in attendance. <br />Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to a time when applicant <br />could be in attendance and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6 -0. <br />C. PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, <br />Development Stage Plan /Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat for expansion of Fairview <br />Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village Drive <br />Staff stated applicant had requested a 10,455 square foot addition to their existing 9,610 <br />square foot clinic building located at 7455 Village Drive. The application submitted <br />includes a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development, a Development <br />Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />