My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/07/2008 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2008
>
01/07/2008 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2015 4:43:05 PM
Creation date
2/12/2015 2:28:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
01/07/2008
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.
/
8
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 />• <br />CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 7, 2008 <br />APPROVED <br />45 Barbara Bor, 7707 — 20th Av N, noted that she was surprised when the temporary lights <br />46 rather suddenly appeared. Historically, the process for development of the church was <br />47 specific. Staff felt that the lighting included in the project was adequate and the church <br />48 project proceeded on that basis. The first season it was clear that visibility was a problem <br />49 and she communicated with the police department on the matter. She was told they were <br />50 exploring the use of flashlights or vests. She sees this as an issue that doesn't lie with the <br />51 church. The lighting issue was raised during discussion of the conditional use permit for <br />52 the property and the chief had ample opportunity to address concerns then. She is hopeful <br />53 that this matter can be solved with effective communication and without a "rally" of the <br />54 neighbors required. She did not receive the level of communication on this issue that she <br />55 would hope for. This is the first she's heard that the church may have an alternative. <br />56 <br />57 Scott Anderson, Eagle Brook Church, noted that the church believed that they were to <br />58 respond to the Chief of Police when the lighting concern arose. They have followed that <br />59 process. It is expensive to try different methods but they are committed to finding a <br />60 proper solution. He wants to maintain good communication with all the neighbors <br />61 including Ms. Bor. He is confident that the parties involved are all committed to finding <br />62 that solution without the necessity of council involvement. <br />63 <br />64 There was a suggestion that temporary directional signaling at the intersections may be a <br />65 better solution. That could take the officer out of the equation. The chief responded that <br />66 a signal approach has been reviewed but due in part to cost considerations it hasn't been <br />67 viewed as a viable approach. The signal approach could also result in an access problem <br />68 for some Centerville residents. <br />69 <br />70 Mr. Anderson explained that the church is now considering replacement of one element <br />71 of the permanent lighting already in place to make those fixtures more focused on the <br />72 problems areas. There is no question that the portable lighting is very bright. <br />73 <br />74 Ms. Bor invited council members to visit her home during Saturday evening services. <br />75 That would give the best perspective of the impact of this lighting. <br />76 <br />77 The council concurred that portable lighting will continue to be utilized. The Police <br />78 Department will meet with affected neighbors, at the neighbor's convenience, to make <br />79 that lighting as minimally intrusive as possible. <br />80 <br />81 Main Street Village Update (Azure Properties, SE1/4 of 35E Interchange) <br />82 (Requested by Reinert, O'Donnell) - Community Development Director Grochala <br />83 explained that this project, proposed for the SE quadrant of the Main Street and Highway <br />84 35E interchange, is scheduled for review by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 9. <br />85 Historically, discussion of development of the site has been at different stages for <br />86 probably the past 9 years. Current discussion revolves around a formal application for <br />87 development that was received in May 2007. That application, and another received in <br />88 July of 2007, was found by city staff to be incomplete. As a courtesy, the plans were <br />89 preliminarily reviewed by appropriate boards. At this time a complete but changed <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.