My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/22/2011 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2011
>
08/22/2011 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2014 1:22:02 PM
Creation date
1/30/2014 11:44:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
08/22/2011
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.
/
93
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
COUNCIL MINUTES August 8, 2011 <br />DRAFT <br />Aft 91 approximately $50,000. Staff is recommending that the council authorize staff to enter a contract <br />92 with Jani -King of Minnesota, Inc. <br />93 <br />94 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 11 -81 as presented. Council Member <br />95 Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. <br />96 <br />97 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT, MICHAEL GROCHALA <br />98 <br />99 6A, Concept Plan Review, Oppidan Grocery Store Proposal, Hodgson Road near County Road <br />100 J — City Planner Smyser reviewed the plans that have been submitted. Plans include a grocery store, <br />101 an attached liquor store and a multi - tenant building. Those items indicated on the map as future <br />102 development are not proposed at this time. Mr. Smyser noted the master planning done for the <br />103 vicinity and revisions that would be required based on the proposal. The purpose of a concept review <br />104 is to solicit informal review and comment on the project's acceptability in relation to the <br />105 comprehensive plan and the city's development regulations; it is not an approval process. Public <br />106 comments have already been received at several advisory board meetings. He discussed the project in <br />107 relation to the city's comprehensive plan. Mr. Smyser reviewed his written report that addressed the <br />108 site, layout and proposed buildings; roads, access and circulations; utilities; landscaping, open space <br />109 and lighting; and comments received from the Planning and Zoning Board, Economic Development <br />110 Advisory Board, Environmental Board, as well as from adjacent jurisdictions. <br />111 <br />112 Kathy Dzik, 268 Rohavic Lane, told the council that she lives behind the 49 Club property and urges <br />.113 the council to consider the big box store this represents. She doesn't think the neighborhood justifies <br />114 that kind of store. There is other space available that is more appropriate. She would be in favor of <br />115 smaller market type store. She is very apprehensive of the noise and truck activity levels and she is <br />116 quite familiar with the operations because she works at a grocery store. Development in the area is <br />117 needed but a big box isn't what the area needs. <br />118 <br />119 Bill Olson, 223 Woodridge Lane, has lived in the city since 1993 and loves living in Lino Lakes. <br />120 He's been involved throughout the master planning process and other discussions since then. He is <br />121 very concerned about the development and the negative impact this development could have on it. <br />122 Trucks and noise will be a problem. <br />123 <br />124 David Puckett, 214 Woodridge Court, presented information from the 2005 city qualify of life survey <br />125 on why people live in the city: rural feeling, lack of interest in additional grocery store, and concern <br />126 that residents have about too much growth. He also presented information on the mayor's campaign <br />127 statements about development. <br />128 <br />129 Council comments included acknowledgement that the council continues to hear the same comments <br />130 from residents concerned about this type of development at the proposed location and impacts on the <br />131 neighborhood. Also that a big box facility doesn't fit in the area. The desire for development is <br />132 clear but the size of the development is a concern. The council sees the public comments outlined in <br />133 the report and sees the same concerns echoed time and time again. It is recognized that the <br />134 development needs to be a certain size in order to succeed but the big box is a concern. Hours of <br />135 operation, deliveries, and roadway use could all be problematic. There continues to be hope that the <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.