Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />December 11, 2002 <br />Page 11 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />noted option 1, divided that into a 61 lot pha se one with no connect ion to Carl and the <br />connection to Carl would be done in the second phase and there would be no detached <br />townhomes. He noted they would like to do option two. He handed out a memorandum <br />to the Commission responding to staff’s recomm endations on the project. He stated they <br />would attempt to coordinate the hangers as much as possible. He stated they had <br />addressed all but eight of staff’s 26 concerns. <br />Mr. Lyden stated he was for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted it was <br />possible to get a quality product in this development. He stated he had a concern about <br />the density issues. He stated the people w ho were responsible for a quality development <br />were the people on this Board and the City Council. He noted the Metropolitan Council <br />could not tell the City what to put on this land. He expressed concern about traffic on <br />Carl Street. He indicated they had told peop le that Carl Street would never be connected. <br />He asked if emergency vehicles could ge t through there, but nobody else. Mr. Johnson <br />replied it would be possible to make a cul-de -sac at the end of the street and have the <br />connection only be for emergency vehicles. <br />Mr. Lyden stated the Metropo litan Council did not care that Lino Lakes had extensive <br />wetlands, and high density did not work in Lino Lakes. He stated they did not have the <br />capability to handle it. <br />Ms. Lane asked if something was designated a certain density, that they could build lower <br />density, but they could not go higher density. She asked if they could go with a lower <br />density. <br />Chair Schaps asked if they were of the opi nion, except for the 8 items, did they believe <br />they were ready to go forward. Mr. Johnson stated he believed except for those items, <br />they could address all of the other issues. <br />Chair Schaps invited the public for their comments. <br />Dave Hunter, Airpark Association, stated th ey had been trying to watch what was going <br />to happen in this development for many year s and at one point, they felt that the <br />development of the area was going in a way that was not going to be in the benefit of the <br />Airpark’s interest, so they approached th e City and asked them about what type of <br />flexibility they had with negot iating with the developer. Th e City told him they could not <br />dictate what Mr. Uhde was going to do with the land, and it was up to the developer to <br />negotiate. He stated the Airpark Associat ion had many meetings with Mr. Uhde and he <br />stated he felt Staff was interfering with thei r negotiations with Mr. Uhde. Specifically, he <br />stated Carl Street had been negotiated with Mr. Uhde that Carl Street should not go <br />through, or if it had to go through it went th rough as emergency access only. He stated <br />he applauded Mr. Johnson’s e fforts in trying to build the streets in a traffic calming <br />manner to reduce the traffic as much as possible and by including a four way stop, it <br />would only increase the traffic. He stated the concern with the “L” shaped cul-de-sac <br />was that there was a delineation of their safe ty zones and as long as it did not infringe <br />upon those safety zones, they were okay with the plan, but this was a concern. In terms <br />of a cul-de-sac for Carl Street, Mr. Johnson sa id he could move that farther east, and as <br />long as the cul-de-sac would maintain the cl earance within regulation, they did not have