My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/12/2005 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2005
>
01/12/2005 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2014 1:35:04 PM
Creation date
6/18/2014 11:27:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
01/12/2005
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.
/
49
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />December 8, 2004 <br />Page 7 <br />Chair Rafferty asked for an explanation of a rain garden. Mr. Studenski replied a rain <br />garden was not the sole stormwater entity that would address the concerns. He stated <br />there would still be ponding put in. He stated rain gardens were a way of incorporating <br />restoration, plantings, etc. He noted it was not a typical wet pond. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Vaughan was in agreement with staff's conditions. Mr. <br />Studenski stated they would be required to meet Anoka County requirements and the <br />County was requiring a turn lane be put in. <br />John Donovan, 7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove, Loucks Associates, applicant's <br />engineer, stated he had received the conditions and they were in agreement with them, as <br />well as the requirement for a turn lane required by Anoka County. He stated rainwater <br />gardens were encouraged by the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated they would <br />use more of the native grasses in the water garden. Mr. Tralle encouraged him to not use <br />a lower standard native grasses. <br />Mr. Donovan replied he would take Mr. Tralle's advice and they would also work with <br />the Rice Creek Watershed District on this. He stated this would be a nice, visible area, <br />with a variety of native grasses. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if they were trying to save trees. Mr. Bengtson replied there was a <br />tree preservation plan and applicant was using retaining walls to attempt to preserve <br />substantial trees. <br />Chair Rafferty asked what was the majority of the species of trees being preserved. Mr. <br />Donovan replied the majority of the trees would be oak. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if construction got within a certain range of the trees, they would <br />die. Mr. Donovan replied typically if they graded within the canopy of the trees, there <br />was less chance of survival, but it was possible to grade within the canopy and the tree <br />still survive. He stated all of the lots would be custom built and they would preserve as <br />many trees as possible. <br />Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approving the Preliminary Plat for a 5 -lot <br />residential development named Vaughan Addition, subject to the seven conditions as <br />noted in staff's December 8, 2004 report and adding a condition 8 to read: Installation of <br />a right turn lane. Motion failed for a lack of a second. <br />Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend denial based on the belief that the design was <br />not in the best interest of the City at this time. Motion failed for a lack of a second. <br />Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approving the Preliminary Plat for a 5 -lot <br />residential development named Vaughan Addition, subject to the seven conditions as <br />noted in staff's December 8, 2004 report and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion <br />carried 3 -2 (Laden and Pogalz). <br />VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.