12/10/2003 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 12 called one of the liaisons, they were told that they had already been spoken to when they had not. She stated she did not want people on her property and that the U.S. Mail would be the more appropriate way to communicate. She asked how they could put notices in the mailboxes legally. She asked the Board to protect the resident's interests and concerns. She noted her property flooded from time to time from ditch 72 and expressed concern that the ditch would not function properly if this development were approved. Chair Schaps asked if she had attended the neighborhood meetings. Ms. Kettler replied she had attended all but the last meeting. Steve Hallblade, 552 Myrtle Lane, stated he was a citizen of Lino Lakes and one of the main reasons they moved to this City was because the Church was going to be building a new facility here. He requested the Board consider all of the residents who were members of the Church. Mr. Smyser noted staff was seeking direction on specifically the traffic issue, as well as other issues brought up this evening. Chair Schaps stated the drainage issue needed to be defined once and for all and if there was a discrepancy to find out why. Mr. Smyser replied the data they used for the EAW was from the Rice Creek Watershed District and he trusted the Watershed's District data. He stated they had seen a variety of diagrams showing a number of things, but the Watershed District ran and ditches and had jurisdiction over the ditches and he trusted their data. He indicated it was true that the thing that matters was the ditch flow remained as it was today and as long as that occurs the area drained by the ditch was a moot point because it was functioning as it did before. He stated the amount it covered was not an issue. He indicated if the Watershed District said the ditch was appropriate and would meet the drainage needs, that was what staff went by. He stated the City and the Watershed District worked together and that was how they assured the public was protected. He noted in all likelihood unless something different was proposed to the Watershed District, the Watershed District's opinion would not change. Chair Schaps inquired about the traffic. He asked if the developments were always going to precede the road developments. He asked if there was any reason to have them believe this would change at any time in the future. Mr. Smyser replied right now there were funding issues, and there are never adequate funds for needed projects. The worst traffic situations get the priority for federal and state funding. Unfortunately, that means the situation gets bad before funds are available. Mr. Grochala stated the County's five year improvement plan was underway for the reconstruction of the east side of 35E in 2005 and they had received Federal funding for reconstruction of 242 from 35W to 35E, not including the interchange. He stated the interchange had been submitted for Federal funding, but the decision had not been made at this point in time and this was potentially a 2007 -2008 project. He stated that the County's review process looked at a five -year plan. He noted the improvements that were needed immediately adjacent to the project was required as a part of the development plan. He stated the roads would follow development. DRAFT MINUTES • • •