09/11/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 28 • enforces the Ordinances and regulations already in placed, I have no objection to the development in question. Thank you for your consideration." Bill Noel, 346 Carl Street, requested the road not go through Carl Street. He stated when he bought his lot he was informed that the road would not go through. He was assured that the street was going to be dead -end. He expressed concern regarding additional traffic and the impact this proposal would have on his property value. He stated he had purchased his property in 1991. Jeff Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, stated he had lived in his home since 1996. "I respectfully request that you allow me to document my concerns over the proposed Comprehensive Plan initiative to extend Carl Street to allow for neig boyhood connections and emergency vehicle access. My home is the last hom Lino Air Park North. The plat shows my lot a is relevant to the case at hand. Let me fill yo with any of the City's records: In 1996, lots wetlands by Ultieg Engineers and The Rice Cr was not granted permission to develop the rem as a fully finished curbed cul -de -sac with m However, current plans are in process for reach east to my property line. Lots 15 by Carl Street only and that is why the that those lots were considered we and developer ended Carl Street easement. Obviously, a misse question: Why can the wetlan sago? My lot (14 lot nearest to th Because of th the hanger considerable proposed street is a very real hazard. my home. 2. My prope homes in cul -de -sacs are m arl Street cul -de -sac on 4. The historical background Youmay check the facts ere considered The Developer ;=and thus, Carl St. was designed o as the ® elopable property. e lop off of Sunset which will originally platted to be accessed that access. Due to the fact d` ale, the city planners, engineers 1 -de- "w' ever bothered to negate the cality fix` ®a std like to pose the most obvious developed when it could not a mere six -year Bated. As a result, my home was placed on the in the plat with access from Carl Street. was orced to place my home nearest the ditch, with treet were extended, it would cause me ng reasons: 1. The proximity of my home to the afety or comfort. I have small children and this poses ere to continue straight, it would run within 18 feet of be decreased drastically. It is common knowledge that e desirable and have higher resale values. 3. There is not enough room to allow for a curbed street of any size, let alone an easement for the ditch and for my home. To consider making the road smaller or moving it closer to my home as a solution is not realistic. It would be intrusive to me and in violation of the intent of the original development. The distance between the ditch bank and my home is 88 feet. The original plat established a 66 -foot easement along the ditch as access to lots 15 -21. As mentioned earlier, these were never developed because they were delineated as wetlands, and the plat was never adjusted to negate the proposed easement. Therefore, Carl Street ended where the 1992 Federal and State Wetland Acts forced it to end. 4. In 1995 when the final plat was approved, Carl Street was purposely curved 45 feet further to the south in order to stay a safe distance from the ditch and allow for appropriate storm water drainage. This design was required and approved at the time by the Rice Creek Watershed District and by the City of Lino Lakes. The developer met this requirement. If the City currently changes its position to fit their proposed needs, it violates Federal, DRAFT MINUTES