My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/14/2004 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2004
>
04/14/2004 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2014 4:28:19 PM
Creation date
4/7/2014 4:28:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
04/14/2004
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />A p r il 14 , 200 4 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. LaCroix expressed c oncern about traffic on 79 th Street. Mr. Studens ki stated in the <br />future there might be some type of a traffic control, but at this time, the traffic did not <br />justify a traffic control. <br /> <br />Mr. LaCroix expressed concern regarding the elevations and that all of the townhomes <br />looked the same. <br /> <br />Eric Englebretson, 712 79 th Street, requested a stipulation of having a berm with trees. <br />He expressed concern about the density of this development. He stated for his privacy, <br />he would like berms with tall tr ees. Mr. Hyden stated it was hi s past experience that trees <br />did not live on berms. <br /> <br />Mr. Englebretson replied he would be agreea ble to not berm, but having dense trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Englebretson expressed concern about the angled parking and th e lights shining in <br />his home. He asked if the parking could be angled differently so the headlights did not <br />shine in his home. Vice Chair Rafferty re plied they would discuss this with the <br />developer. <br /> <br />Kirk Nelson, 710 79 th Street, expressed concern about the zoning. He stated it was his <br />understanding that this was going to be phased in. He indica ted this development did not <br />fit in with single-family homes. He aske d if this could be R-2. Vice Chair Rafferty <br />replied the Comprehensive Plan zoned this as R-3 and the Met Council would have to <br />approve any zoning changes, but ri ght now this was zoned as R-3. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson asked what could he do as a citizen to get this changed. Mr. Smyser replied <br />the process began years ago and this is what ultimately came out of the commission. He <br />stated this had been approved in 2002. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson expressed concern about the density . He presented to the Board a proposed <br />drawing showing the density to be at 10 buildin gs, instead of 20. He asked if this would <br />be feasible. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Rafferty asked Mr. Nelson how he woul d feel if he were the developer and his <br />development was cut down from 18 to 10 units. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson replied he realized the more units that were put in there, the more money the <br />developer would get. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. <br /> <br />Steve Schmidt, developer, stated when the association would be set up, the association <br />dues became a lien on the property, and those due could be collected by the association <br />through foreclosure. He noted the associa tion dues came ahead of the mortgage. He <br />stated he did not know if an association coul d “disband” themselves or not, and this was <br />something the City Attorney would need to an swer. He stated, however, that the City did <br />approve the association documents . He indicated the developer would be in charge of the <br />association for the first two years, at which time it would be turned over to the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.