My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08-04-25 - City Council Work Session Agenda
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2025
>
Searchable Packets
>
08-04-25 - City Council Work Session Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2025 12:23:11 PM
Creation date
8/1/2025 11:50:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
08/04/2025
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
617
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
Comment Response <br />2. Sam Bennett <br />I was the one who suggested bringing the park in towards the high density and <br />commercial areas. This was intended to make the park more accessible to those <br />Comment noted. The scope of the AUAR did not <br />most likely to use it and drive mutually beneficial activities most simply, being able <br />evaluate changing the location of the land uses in <br />to buy lunch and enjoy the playground. Instead the high density was stretched out <br />the two scenarios. As site development advances, <br />to the park. Which does make it more accessible to many users it does not close <br />specific residential and commercial land use <br />the gap between the commercials and park space and now a much higher <br />boundaries should be generally <br />percentage of single family lots are adjacent to the density. Overall, I don't see <br />followed and considered somewhat flexible in <br />enough benefit for option 2.1 over 2.0. it feels like a hybrid of "islands of density" <br />order to accommodate natural features, land <br />that was first to be eliminated. <br />assembly and other physical issues. <br />My primary concern with option 2.1 is that drives the most impactful development <br />into the center where it cannot be avoided. It would be more practical to keep <br />that more compact so the back half can have reduced impacts. The park should be <br />the center of this higher density area and please design the park to be adjacent to <br />the commercial and higher density areas. That way it can be accessed by the most <br />Comment noted. <br />people and events benefit small businesses. This is a great opportunity to close the <br />street and have a block party, holiday stroll, or Blue Heron Days but that's not <br />nearly as beneficial if the green space and commercial spaces are so divorced. <br />3. Christina Narwid <br />With the additional development in the NW Main corridor, I worry about the traffic <br />going to Centennial Middle School and High School. There is a plan in place to <br />make Sunset Avenue safer, but I would love to see the Sunset bridge over 35W <br />Comment noted. The City will coordinate with <br />have a pedestrian/bike lane. That is the main route from this neighborhood to the <br />the County for consideration. <br />schools so there are many kids riding their bikes to get to those locations. It is <br />already unsafe and there will be even more traffic with the increased density. <br />4. Sue Bass <br />13 <br />Page 552 of 617 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.