Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 12, 2017 <br />Page 8 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> Mr. Stoez asked if it can be split in half by keeping north side commerical and <br />making the south side residential. <br /> Ms. Lindahl stated that nothing is stopping anyone from proposing a good use on <br />the site. <br /> <br />1C – South of 67th Street from Ware Road to Holly Drive <br /> Mr. Root asked about the preserve conservation area and if this area would be an <br />extension of that. He asked if the idea is to move this area forward in staging. <br /> Mr. Grochala stated that the area could be split into 2 districts with one half [east <br />side] moving into a sooner sewer staging district. The area would only be roughly <br />60 units and guided for low density development. <br /> Mr. Laden asked if it is directed by the Met Coucil. <br /> Mr. Grochala stated that the Met Council has no system here and municipalities <br />have taken the lead. <br /> Mr. Masonick asked if 62nd Street has sewer capacity for houses on it. <br /> Mr. Grochala stated that sewers 62nd Street does have sewer and water. <br /> Mr. Stoez asked that why Red Maple Lane is marked the way it is on the land use <br />map. <br /> Mr. Grochala stated that it is currently zoned urban reserve and that going to be <br />pushed out to 2040 for sewer service. He also stated that if there is enough interest <br />the staging could be moved up in time. <br /> <br />2A – Sod Farms Area <br /> Chair Tralle asked if it was one of the ecological development proposals. <br /> Mr. Grochala stated it was going to be similar to the lakes development [in <br />Blaine] and that the reason it was guided the way it was was on account of a <br />future collector road. He also stated that this plan has begun to reemerge. He <br />stated that densities will likely be averaged out over the entire area and asked if <br />any member had any issues with the current design. <br /> Mr. Laden asked why the checkerboard design of the proposed land use. <br /> Mr. Grochala stated that they did not want to have 160 acres of mixed use as it <br />has the highest allowed density. <br /> Chair Tralle stated that a lot of the sites so far have had work done already and <br />with no development why change what’s there. <br /> <br />2B – Lake Drive Corridor North of Main Street <br /> Mr. Grochala explained the nature of the business mix along the corridor that do <br />not currently fit zoning classifications and future land use guidance. <br /> Mr. Stoez asked what Columbus has zoned along Lake Drive. <br /> Mr. Grochala stated that Coumbus is zoned all commercial along Lake Drive. <br /> Mr. Laden stated he thought that all of Lake Drive would end up commercial. <br /> Mr. Grochala said that there is a lot of conflicting land uses along the corridor that <br />makes it becoming all one or the other difficult. <br /> Ms. Lindahl stated the biggest concern is to limit access onto Lake Drive and <br />turning conflicts for vehicles.