08/09/1989 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 9, 1989 approval of the Site and Building Plan for Praise of His Glories Ministries, Application #89 -35 contingent upon meeting the city planner's recommendations as described above. That topography, wetlands and high water marks be shown on the plat map before this application is reviewed by the Lino Lakes City Council. Robert King seconded the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. MOTION: Robert King moved to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for PHG Ministries, Application #89 -39 with the stipulation that #5 of Mr. Miller's recommendation be met. It states: Nothing in the conditional use permit be interpreted or construed as freeing the applicant from meeting all building code standards for public buildings. Sally Kuether seconded the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. REVIEW OF SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR WCCO RADIO SATELLITE, APPLICATION #89 -36. John Palmer, Consulting Electric Engineer from Midwest Cable & Satellite Company wishes to add an additional satellite on the site to keep up with the demands for more cable services. The construction is to be located on the 158 acre parcel owned by Midwest Cable. In 1982 Midwest Radio- Television Inc. (A.K.A. WCCO) received a conditional use permit from the city to locate a radio transmission facility on land near the south boundary of Lino Lakes on Holly Drive. At that time three 10 meter dishes were installed. In 1984 the applicant asked for a 44 x 52 foot building on the property. The project was approved with the following conditions: 1. The building surface facing Holly Drive be covered with brick. 2. Proper screening be planted. 3. Damage to Holly Drive by transporting building materials be repaired by WCCO. 4. If the building is abandoned, that it not be sold as a residence. Later in 1984 the CUP was amended again to add two additional receiving antennae dishes. John Miller added that the brick never was put on the front of the building and their is no evidence of "proper screening" as required in the 1984 permit. Page 4