My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/13/2002 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
03/13/2002 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2014 3:14:01 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 9:41:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
03/13/2002
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.
/
58
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
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 <br />Mayor Bergeson suggested the trail be put in when the streets are put in. Staff advised <br />the City has been doing that recently so prospective buyers know where trails will be <br />placed. <br />Council directed staff to move forward with the construction of 62nd Street with <br />barricades and a temporary turn around to the north. <br />The City Engineer introduced Mr. Jason Wedel of TKDA. Mr. Wedel will be filling in <br />for the City Engineer next week. <br />LACASSE DRIVE TRAIL ISSUE, RICK DEGARDNER <br />Staff distributed a memo regarding LaCasse Drive trail. The memo outlined the <br />background of the trail placement and the primary objective of the trail. The developer <br />has indicated that should the City decide to vacate the trail, he wil the City $1,000 <br />since he will not have to pay for the installation of the trail. <br />Staff recommended the developer construct the trail. Ho <br />decide to vacate this trail, perhaps the City may want <br />block lengths in the future to avoid this problem. S aff <br />previously suggested that the trail be kept in a gr <br />Staff advised the trail should be paved or vac <br />Mr. Petronack, 6601 LaCasse Drive, st <br />the trail, the residents will take care <br />in even though it was not shown <br />of the trail noting it is not part <br />the streets were put in. The <br />signatures from the neigh • ,M '� 'ca <br />the Council <br />t allowing excessive <br />ouncil Member Carlson <br />d be mowed by the City. <br />City chooses not to vacate or pave <br />e sta ed he understands why the trail was put <br />stributed a map indicating the placement <br />all segment. The trail was not put in when <br />are also opposed to the trail. He noted he can get <br />g their opposition to the trail. <br />Council Member D <br />keeping the trail is stric <br />was made with the devel <br />trail is not needed. <br />staff's reason for keeping the trail. Staff advised <br />fr om a planning level regarding street layout. An agreement <br />er for the excessive block length. From a park perspective, the , <br />Council Member O'Donnell asked if this situation has occurred anywhere else in the City. <br />The City Planner advised he does not know of anywhere else this has occurred in the <br />City. He stated that if the trail had not been put in, a road would have been put in. He <br />noted there are a number of places within the City that blocks are too long. <br />The City Engineer noted there was a roadway and a watermain loop on that property. <br />Council Member Reinert asked if the staff recommendation is based on the ordinance. <br />Staff advised the recommendation is strictly based on the ordinance. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.