Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 10, 2005 <br />Page 11 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Chair Rafferty stated he believed it would be inappropriate to approve this tonight until <br />he had a better understanding as to what was going on with Lake Drive. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle noted he lived on the north side of the City and he knew about the traffic <br />problems in this area. He indicated every Fr iday night he fights the traffic and the only <br />way they were going to alleviate this probl em was for the residents to “bug” Anoka <br />County about putting in a stop light at Lake Drive and Main St reet. He stated connecting <br />Lois Lane and Street A was important to keep traffic flowing and allow emergency <br />access and as P & Z members, they needed to make sure they did not create pockets <br />where there was insufficient access. He stated he could not approve this tonight because <br />of the unanswered questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson agreed with Mr. Tr alle to not dead end Lois Lane. He recommended Lois <br />Lane be connected to Street A. He reque sted staff follow up with Anoka County as to <br />their plans for Lake Drive and would they line up Vicky Lane as a part of this <br />development. He stated he did not k now how requiring sidewalks in this new <br />development would improve the traffic or pedestrian traffi c on Lois Lane. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he also agreed with the previous comments made. He noted traffic <br />studies were difficult to unders tand and did not always make sense. He indicated these <br />studies were not the perfect an swer, but to not connect Street A to Lois Lane would be a <br />huge mistake and they needed to have this access. He stated he understood their concerns <br />about the additional traffic and the safety of their children, but the developer had the right <br />to develop his property. He noted the proposed density was pretty good considering they <br />were originally going to propos e a townhouse development. He agreed this development <br />had a ways to go from his point and they we re doing the best th ey could with their <br />options. He stated they were not going to vot e for this tonight and the developer had to <br />show up to answer their questions. He stat ed the Board would do everything they could <br />for the existing neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden stated he would like to see this development be more harmonious with the <br />existing neighborhood, which meant having bigger lots and fewer homes. He noted <br />development was inevitable, but they needed to plan a good development. He indicated <br />there were things about this development that were very good, but they had a ways to go. <br />He stated infrastructure w ould not happen until it got bad. He believed Anoka County <br />did not have any plans until they saw that things were really bad and it would take a lot of <br />public pressure on the County Commissioners to get anything done. He noted this was <br />unfortunate, but that was the way the system worked. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz asked what was the timeline on th is application. Mr. Bengston replied the <br />application came in July, 2005 and they had 120-da ys to make a decision, so tabling this <br />would not be an issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden made a MOTION to table the Rezo ne to R-1 and GB, Preliminary Plat and <br />MUSA Allocation, Pine Glen, 7930 Lake Dr ive and was supported by Mr. Tralle. <br />Motion carried 6-0. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 9:13 p.m . and reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m.