My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/08/2005 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2005
>
06/08/2005 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2014 2:37:23 PM
Creation date
6/19/2014 11:02:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
06/08/2005
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.
/
65
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />May 11, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />Chair Rafferty noted condition three addressed the lighting. He asked if a lighting plan <br />would be submitted. Mr. Bengtson replied they were only looking at this addition and <br />not the entire site. He stated staff would not typically retroactively review the entire site. <br />Mr. Tralle noted this had been tabled for a month and it gave applicant the opportunity to <br />come into compliance with the conditions, which he did not do. He indicated he was not <br />comfortable approving this because he had not met the conditions of the first CUP, <br />including fire sprinkling. Mr. Bengtson replied that the applicant had indicated there <br />would not be additional lighting with this proposal and they were going to comply with <br />the fire sprinkling requirement. <br />Mr. Tralle noted recommendation three was the same in this request as it was in the <br />previous CUP. <br />Mr. Root stated he had the same concerns previously mentioned. He asked if it was <br />appropriate to review the performance of the current situation versus the requirements of <br />the 1999 CUP to see if there were any violations to the previous conditions before they <br />moved forward. Mr. Bengtson replied the Board could look at the previous situation if <br />they wanted. <br />Mr. Root asked if the Board could add the previous conditions to the proposed new <br />conditions. Mr. Bengtson replied that could be done. <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if the applicant would be reimbursed for any cost associated with <br />obtaining a photometric plan if it was determined the lighting was in compliance. Mr. <br />Bengtson stated that the applicant would not be reimbursed. <br />Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. <br />Reid Rehbein, 6298 Hodgson Road, stated the lighting was already there and he did not <br />see any reason for a lighting plan. <br />Mr. Laden asked if he understood the residents had problems with their lighting. Mr. <br />Rehbein replied they had not had complaints since they had angled the lighting down. He <br />asked if they wanted to change the lighting. <br />Mr. Laden replied the Board wanted to review the lighting. <br />Mr. Tralle stated he understood they had lights going into the residential properties and <br />they needed to bring these lights into compliance. Mr. Rehbein replied he could tear the <br />lights down, but noted he did not know the residents had a problem with the lights. He <br />stated he has not had a complaint in 8 years. <br />Mr. Nelson stated he lived in the neighborhood and there were a lot of complaints that he <br />has heard. He stated he did not believe the lights were aimed downward, but were aimed <br />outward. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.