Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 10, 2005 <br />Page 9 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br />Trish Yotter, 874 Lois Lane, asked if ther e had been any consideration about the <br />economic impact on th e existing neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty requested staff address the questions asked so far. <br /> <br />Mr. Bengston stated it was up to Anoka Count y as to what was going to happen with <br />Lake Drive and the City or developer had no cont rol over this. With respect to the traffic <br />analysis on Lois Lane, there was not a study done on this because traffic was designed to <br />go to the main entrance and exit point and tr aveling through Lois La ne was a longer route <br />for the people to take. He stated it was not studied how many people would go through <br />Lois Lane and this would be scientifically im possible to determine. With respect to the <br />cul-de-sac, it was required to be no more than 500-feet. The trail was on the developer’s <br />property, even though there was an easement in place. He stated the trail was within the <br />tree and brush trimming area beyond the easement. With respect to the density level, this <br />was guided by the Comprehensive Plan and th is property was well below the allowable <br />level. With respect to vacating Dupont Av enue, this was a possibility and staff would <br />need to look at this to determ ine if this was the best course of action, but if there was an <br />application made, they would look at this. He noted no sidewalks were being proposed <br />or required for this development. With re spect to the existing trees on the site, the <br />developer had indicated they would try and pr eserve as many trees as possible as this <br />would increase the properties values, but it mi ght not be possible to save all of the trees <br />they would like to because of grading issues . He noted until they staked the properties, <br />they would not know how many trees they would be able to preserve. With respect to the <br />density, this was a low density residential a nd they were within and below those density <br />levels. With respect to the north exit, Street C was set up to connect in the future, but as <br />the developer did not own the property to the north, it was impossible to require the <br />developer to provide this access. He stated it was their intent to provide as many access <br />points as possible due to emerge ncy services being able to ac cess the area. He noted the <br />Lois Lane access would provide a secondary a ccess into the area, as well as providing <br />another access onto Lois Lane. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. <br /> <br />Larry Olson, LSJ Engineering, stated they woul d put a list of builder s together that they <br />would provide to staff. He noted this would probably not be a final list as the list of <br />builders was usually not prepared as a part of the preliminary plat pr ocess, but this list <br />would give a good representation of what they were proposing. He noted this plan had <br />gone before staff for some time and initially this was going to be townhomes. He noted <br />they had some size constraints, which did not allow them to be very creative. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if they would be open to th e possibility of provi ding a sidewalk through <br />Street A. Mr. Olson replied he would br ing this up to the de veloper (23 LLC) for <br />consideration. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle asked if there were any other developments 23 LLC has done anywhere else. <br />Mr. Olson responded this was the first devel opment for 23 LLC, but some of the partners <br />in 23 LLC were also the pa rtners for Clearwater Creek.