My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/08/2004 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2004
>
09/08/2004 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2014 4:30:39 PM
Creation date
4/7/2014 4:30:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
09/08/2004
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 />Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 <br />Page 4 <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />Jim Sievert, 770 Deerwood Circle, asked how was this property being rezoned. Mr. <br />Smyser stated the rezoning was necessary if they were going to do a conservation <br />development because some lot sizes would need to be adjusted in order to achieve the <br />environmental pluses they were attempting. <br /> <br />Mr. Sievert asked if there was a plan in place when the current zoning was put into effect. <br />Mr. Smyser replied this was zoned R-1, which was single-family development. He noted <br />this was the same type of zoning as the developments around it. <br /> <br />Mr. Sievert asked why they needed to change the original plan. Mr. Smyser replied they <br />were not changing the original use of the site or what would be built on the site. He <br />indicated they were hoping to change how it would be configured on the site, which <br />would be more environmentally friendly. He stated the current zoning on the site would <br />not allow a conservation development and that was the reason for the rezoning. <br /> <br />Mr. Sievert asked why the City was not changi ng all of the R-1 zonings so all future <br />developments were environmentally friendly. Mr. Smyser replied developments already <br />developed could not be changed. The City was considering a rezoning to a PUD, which <br />could change some lot sizes. <br /> <br />Mr. Sievert expressed concern th at the existing streets were very narrow and the increase <br />of traffic in the existing developments. <br /> <br />Al Stender, 6379 Deerwood Lane, expressed co ncern about the increase in traffic in <br />general and the increase in construction trucks, etc. during development. He asked if the <br />developer was responsible for any repairs to Deerwood due to the construction trucks. <br />Mr. Studenski replied the C ity took pictures of the ex isting roads prior to any <br />development and the developer was responsible to repair any damage to those roads. <br /> <br />Mark Pederson, 6307 Deerwood Lane, asked if Deerwood Lane was considered a <br />collector road. Mr. Studen ski replied Deerwood Lane was not a collector road. <br /> <br />Mr. Pederson asked who prepared the traffic study. Mr. Studenski replied the developer <br />hired for the traffic study and that traf fic study was then reviewed by the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Pederson asked how did the City know the traffic study was accurate. Mr. Studenski <br />replied the City had their engineering fi rm, TKDA, review the study for accuracy. <br /> <br />Mr. Pederson expressed concern about the ch ildren walking to school and the lack of <br />sidewalks in the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Studenski stated these roads were de signed to handle the additional traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Pederson inquired about the access onto Birch Street. Chair Rafferty noted Birch <br />Street did not have anything to do with th is discussion and he suggested Mr. Pederson <br />contact Anoka County regarding tr affic concerns on Birch Street. <br /> <br />Mr. Studenski noted the traffic study did address traffic on Birch Street.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.