02/12/2003 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES Page 17 engineered as a permanent cul-de-sac. He stated the placement of his home was in accordance to the original deve lopment plan and wetlands delineated at the time. He indicated the house was placed at the end of th e street because of the wetlands and the permanent cul-de-sac. He indicated under ad visement from the City Council, Mr. Uhde’s development was sent to the P&Z Board to review other options extending Carl Street, for example, including access to the north in to Robinson’s Sod property and power line access. He noted the City planners had not offered any other solutions as advised by the City Council. He stated the Airpark is unique in comparison to normal neighborhoods. The runway divides the north residences from the south. To “connect” neighborhoods does not fit since our community is unique to aviators. He stated the traffic study completed by the City and Mr. Uhde’s devel opment firm specifically stated that the traffic flows into Carl Street did not warrant the extension. He stated the majority of Carl Street residents signed a pe tition not to extend Carl St reet. He noted there were developers interested in purch asing the sod fields for development. He asked why the City did not plan for the future with the Comprehensive Plan to forecast, design and develop without infringing upon existing neighbo rhoods. He noted from an engineering standpoint, the street would not fit. He asked who was responsible to design and implement the extension. He asked why the C ity had not proved their point with written documentation. He stated the Rice Creek Wate rshed District requir ed a 50-foot easement from the center of the ditch. He stated the Ci ties easement from the curb to his house was 35 feet. He asked how would the street fit wi th that easement. He asked if the storm pond was filled, where would the run off wa ter go. He asked about the cul-de-sac removal, driveway extension, and trees. Chair Schaps asked if he was opposed to the de velopment, or just to the extension of Carl Street. Mr. Kolstad replied he was not opposed to the development, just to the extension of Carl Street. Carl Johnson, 314 Carl Street, stated he was oppos ed to the extension of Carl Street. He asked if it was possible if Carl Street ha d to go through, that it be maintained at a narrower width. Mr. Studenski replied the City standard for a street was 32-34 feet. Mr. Johnson noted he was concerned about the small portion that was along Mr. Kolstad’s property. Mr. Studenski replied curr ently Carl Street was substandard to City requirements. If a new road was put in, it woul d be put in at the current City standards. Mr. Johnson inquired about the bike path along Carl Street . Mr. Johnson replied there was a six foot sidewalks, not an eight-foot bike path that was proposed on Century Trail and whether it went down Carl Street was up to the City. Mr. Johnson noted if there were not a sidewa lk, there would leave a larger buffer. He reviewed the history of Carl Street as he understood it. Mr. Rafferty asked if Lots 15 and 16 were ev er on the Final Plat. Mr. Johnson replied those lots were undevelopable due to wetland issues. Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, stated Lot 15 and 16 were wetlands and could not be developed. He stated the cul-de-sac was put in with the understa nding it would remain a