Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />A p r il 14 , 200 4 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. LaCroix expressed c oncern about traffic on 79 th Street. Mr. Studens ki stated in the <br />future there might be some type of a traffic control, but at this time, the traffic did not <br />justify a traffic control. <br /> <br />Mr. LaCroix expressed concern regarding the elevations and that all of the townhomes <br />looked the same. <br /> <br />Eric Englebretson, 712 79 th Street, requested a stipulation of having a berm with trees. <br />He expressed concern about the density of this development. He stated for his privacy, <br />he would like berms with tall tr ees. Mr. Hyden stated it was hi s past experience that trees <br />did not live on berms. <br /> <br />Mr. Englebretson replied he would be agreea ble to not berm, but having dense trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Englebretson expressed concern about the angled parking and th e lights shining in <br />his home. He asked if the parking could be angled differently so the headlights did not <br />shine in his home. Vice Chair Rafferty re plied they would discuss this with the <br />developer. <br /> <br />Kirk Nelson, 710 79 th Street, expressed concern about the zoning. He stated it was his <br />understanding that this was going to be phased in. He indica ted this development did not <br />fit in with single-family homes. He aske d if this could be R-2. Vice Chair Rafferty <br />replied the Comprehensive Plan zoned this as R-3 and the Met Council would have to <br />approve any zoning changes, but ri ght now this was zoned as R-3. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson asked what could he do as a citizen to get this changed. Mr. Smyser replied <br />the process began years ago and this is what ultimately came out of the commission. He <br />stated this had been approved in 2002. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson expressed concern about the density . He presented to the Board a proposed <br />drawing showing the density to be at 10 buildin gs, instead of 20. He asked if this would <br />be feasible. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Rafferty asked Mr. Nelson how he woul d feel if he were the developer and his <br />development was cut down from 18 to 10 units. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson replied he realized the more units that were put in there, the more money the <br />developer would get. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. <br /> <br />Steve Schmidt, developer, stated when the association would be set up, the association <br />dues became a lien on the property, and those due could be collected by the association <br />through foreclosure. He noted the associa tion dues came ahead of the mortgage. He <br />stated he did not know if an association coul d “disband” themselves or not, and this was <br />something the City Attorney would need to an swer. He stated, however, that the City did <br />approve the association documents . He indicated the developer would be in charge of the <br />association for the first two years, at which time it would be turned over to the