My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/11/2004 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2004
>
08/11/2004 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2014 4:30:15 PM
Creation date
4/7/2014 4:30:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
08/11/2004
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.
/
10
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 ugu st 11, 2 004 <br />Page 8 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br />Staff stated applicant had re quested approval of a single-fa mily residential development <br />called Fox Den Acres. This is a new submittal of a plan that is different from the <br />previous design reviewed several months a go. The comprehensive plan guides the site <br />for low-density residential use and it is zone d R-1. The site is in the existing MUSA. <br /> <br />A public hearing is required for a preliminar y plat. Unfortunatel y, staff neglected to <br />publish a public hearing notice fo r this meeting and it will publish this for the September <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Staff noted they typically do not recommend approval until they receive the preliminary <br />approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District and they had not received approval by the <br />Watershed for this project. In addition, th ere are some design issues that must be <br />addressed. Therefore, staff would be r ecommending continuing the project to the <br />September meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden asked about the negative impact of vacating the easement on Block 4. Mr. <br />Smyser replied they did not fully know what all of the implications would be, but this <br />would be one of the things they looked at under the conservation approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz expressed concern about getting the same set of plans back that they had <br />looked at previously and being e xpected to feel differently about the project. He stated <br />his concerns were still there, including traffic, and had not been addressed in this new <br />proposal. He asked if they were doing the right thing by developi ng this land and making <br />the traffic worse. Mr. Grochala replied th ere were a number of i ssues on the previous <br />proposal for denial, with traffi c being only one of those issu es and quite a few of those <br />issues had been addressed in this new proposal. <br /> <br />Bob Schack, 763 Fox Road, stated he found out about this meeting two days ago. He <br />stated the association was not trying to st op this development, but they wanted to <br />minimize the impact to their development. He noted they had concerns about waterflow <br />into their basements on the east side. He e xpressed concern about the impact of this <br />development on their existing ponds. He expre ssed concern about the increase of traffic <br />and requested they address the one access into and out of the development. Mr. Grochala <br />replied staff had been working on the waterflow of the site. He stated they were trying to <br />minimize large holding ponds and get water flowing through the site. <br /> <br />Mike Black, applicant, stated developers we re used to the regula tory process and the <br />more that was regulated would make it easier to work through the pr ocess. He indicated <br />developers needed to look at their process, investment and what they were trying to <br />accomplish also. He noted developers also liked plans that did not require variances. He <br />stated this development was a very low-de nsity development they were proposing. He <br />indicated they were not reque sting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment with this new plan <br />as they had in the past and he believed that had been a major concern of the City. He <br />stated they had 8 less lots, the wetland imp act was about the same, and the grading plan <br />had been addressed. He stated they had met with staff and they had another meeting set <br />up for next week to discuss the open space. He stated as a developer he liked the <br />regulatory process and the give and take process being propo sed in the open space plan
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.