My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09-28-2020 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2020
>
09-28-2020 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2021 4:24:27 PM
Creation date
11/17/2021 11:54:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
09/28/2020
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
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
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />DRAFT <br /> 2 <br />- Master Plan for Area Review; 43 <br />- Transportation Plan; 44 <br />- Buffering and Screening Plans (that was thoroughly reviewed with the 45 <br />neighborhood); 46 <br />- Architecture; Footprint; Floorplan; Views; 47 <br />- Revised plans reviewed; continue to meet City requirements; 48 <br />- Park Dedication Fees; 49 <br />- Findings of Fact; 50 <br />- Planning and Zoning Board and staff recommendations. 51 <br /> 52 <br />Staff anticipates bringing the request for approval to the council at the second meeting of 53 <br />the month to allow for staff’s final review of the development agreement. 54 <br />Mayor Rafferty received concurrence that the Planning & zoning Board request be 55 <br />honored with the action. 56 <br /> 57 <br />Councilmember Stoesz asked for an explanation of the “public road” component. Ms. 58 <br />Larsen explained that the road will be constructed through the development but will then 59 <br />become public property and City maintenance will be required. Councilmember Stoesz 60 <br />asked if there is Phase 11 parking planned. Ms. Larsen explained that parking elements 61 <br />are tied to the different buildings/facilities; all elements were analyzed independently. 62 <br /> 63 <br />Councilmember Lyden said he thinks this will be a great project for the City. He asked 64 <br />about the nearby highway interchange and if that will be an improved situation with these 65 <br />plans and other plans to improve that intersection. Community Development Director 66 <br />Grochala noted that area road improvements are probably pushed into 2022 with this 67 <br />development schedule; the County is trying to put together the most complete package 68 <br />and there could be a little offset. 69 <br /> 70 <br />Councilmember Cavegn asked about the south end buffer; will that be maintained by the 71 <br />City. Ms. Larsen noted that all landscaping, retaining walls, etc will be maintained by 72 <br />Lyngblomsten. 73 <br /> 74 <br />Councilmember Ruhland asked about the size of the commercial element; Ms. Larsen 75 <br />couldn’t answer specifically but suggested 12,000 sf. It was noted that there is privacy 76 <br />fence included to deal with a possible future of headlights entering the commercial 77 <br />property. Councilmember Lyden asked about the construction of the privacy fence; Ms. 78 <br />Larsen said that is yet to be determined but staff will attempt to steer the developer in the 79 <br />direction of high quality. 80 <br /> 81 <br />Staff will be bringing a final and somewhat more refined action request to the Council in 82 <br />the coming weeks. 83 <br /> 84 <br />Mayor Rafferty remarked that the site has been something of an eyesore for the City and a 85 <br />quality development is a welcome addition; thanks to staff for their work. 86
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.