My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/10/2020 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2020
>
11/10/2020 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2021 3:12:18 PM
Creation date
1/14/2021 8:54:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
11/10/2020
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.
/
5
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 />November 10, 2020 <br />Page 3 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Chair Tralle commented the driveway should be poured in front of the third stall to <br />ensure it is covered for future use. He asked the applicant, Jason Hohn, from Bald <br />Eagle Builders, if he had any comments for the board. <br /> <br />Applicant’s Comments <br /> <br />Mr. Hohn questioned why the board would require him to pave in front of the third <br />stall if there is no rule by the City requiring him to do so. <br /> <br />Chair Tralle explained by requiring the driveway to be paved, future issues and/or <br />complaints by the next owner or the neighbors would be eliminated. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked Ms. Larsen for verification as he understood, if vehicles were <br />driven into the third stall, the driveway would not have to be concrete or asphalt, but <br />it could be class 5. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen clarified since the parcel will be less than one acre, the driveway in front <br />of the third stall would have to be bituminous or concrete if it is ever used for <br />vehicles. <br /> <br />Mr. Evenson wondered why the driveway was not required to be paved when the <br />garage was constructed. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen said the purpose or intent of the third stall determines whether the <br />driveway needs to be paved or not. If the third stall was intended for storage <br />purposes and not for parking vehicles, then the driveway would not have been <br />required to be paved when the third stall was constructed. <br /> <br />Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 6:50 p.m. <br /> <br />Karrie Galetka, 7144 2nd Avenue, expressed concern with the amount of traffic on <br />2nd Avenue coming from Elm Street and with the proximity of the new lot to the <br />intersection. Moreover, she expressed concern for residents crossing the street at <br />Elm Street since the boulevard on the southwest corner of Elm Street is small. <br /> <br />Chair Tralle acknowledged Ms. Galetka’s concern regarding the abnormalities of the <br />boulevard and the amount of traffic. However, he explained the addition of one <br />home is not going to substantially affect traffic and to deny the construction of the <br />home for such a reason is not justifiable. <br /> <br />Ms. Galetka asked if the board or staff knew why the boulevard, at the southwest <br />corner of Elm Street, was constructed as such. <br /> <br />Mr. Grochala explained the boulevard was altered when Elm Street was <br />reconstructed in 2002 and 2003. The intent of the boulevard was to reduce the speed
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.