01/08/2003 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 12 any problems with it. He noted with Lot 14, if it were up to the Airpark, all of the lots west of that lot would also be Airpark lot. He stated staff s concern was that there was a compatibility issue between an airpark owner and a non - airpark owner. He stated this is not an issue and if there was an issue, then make them all Airpark lot. He stated it was not fair to take that away. He noted it provided buffer for the Airpark area and in some way, it could be very effective, because there would not be a feeling of Airpark people versus non - Airpark people. He noted they wanted to keep Lot 4 as part of the Airpark. He noted staff brought up the idea of a buffer. He stated a buffer was for noise reduction and people access. He noted they did not want non - educated people to be out on the runway or taxiway. He stated if Lot 9 remained an Airpark lot with a hanger and a house, that would create an excellent buffer. He noted someone would be a lot more reluctant to walk across the property if there was a house on it. He indicated if that lot went away, then he wanted the lots east of Lot 4 became Airpark lots, so that they would create the buffer they had negotiated with Mr. Uhde. In terms of the hanger designs being submitted with City approval, they had tried to do that with the hangers on the southwest side of the Airpark. He noted they wanted the hangers to blend in well with the area. He stated to just make a simple change to a hanger, that was a huge expense. He stated an Airpark hanger was an Airpark hanger and he requested they not put further restrictions on those hangers. He stated the Association did have a hanger approval process as a part of the Airpark, and if they needed City input that would be fine, but they did not want to make this a political process. He stated all of the hangers were limited to 3200 feet and while they would like them to be larger, they definitely did not want to go smaller than 3200 feet. Mr. Hyden stated with respect to Lot 9, it was his understanding the City was not talking about eliminating that lot. Mr. Kirmis replied they suggested it no longer be an Airpark lot. Mr. Hyden asked if he needed to own a plane to put up a hanger. Mr. Hunter stated as part of owning a lot in the Airpark, he could put up a hanger, even if he did not own a plane, as long as it complied with the regulations of the Airpark and the Airpark dues were paid. Mr. Corson asked if the Airpark would also review the hanger plans prior to them being put up. Mr. Hunter replied that had not been the case before, but they would not oppose reviewing hanger plans. Chair Schaps asked if the Airpark Association ever reviewed any of the covenants and declarations of Century Farm with the continued existence of the Airpark. Mr. Hunter replied they had reviewed these documents, and he acknowledged that the new residents would know about the Airpark. James Munster stated when the plans came out the first time, it was a low density development and it went along with the area and it looked appealing. He stated under this latest plan, the greatest concern he had was with density. He stated high density townhomes with alleys would not match the City of Lino Lakes. He stated alleys in particular was a great concern for him. He stated with the higher density, there was less tree preservation. He stated trees made a great sound buffer and made is much more DRAFT MINUTES • • •