01/27/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003 APPROVED 1 Councilmember O'Donnell asked about the park dedication fees. He indicated that determination of 41) 2 fees was part of the City fee schedule and wouldn't change the ordinance when reviewed. City 3 Planner Smyser indicated that was correct and thanked Councilmember O'Donnell for the 4 clarification. 5 6 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if more specifics on tree trunk size and height could be shown 7 under Tree Replacement (1009.2). City Planner Smyser indicated it would be referred back to the 8 definitions on page 1001.9, which gives strict definitions of what qualifies under Tree Replacement. 9 10 Councilmember O'Donnell asked for clarification that occupancy permits would also be held up in 11 case there were final grading changes during building. City Planner Smyser indicated that is 12 addressed in the zoning ordinance. 13 14 Councilmember O'Donnell confirmed that there are two checks to make sure grading was done as 15 specified. City Planner Smyser stated grading was addressed with the developer originally, then 16 again with a survey at time of building permit and finally before the occupancy permit is issued. 17 Councilmember Reinert clarified this was three checks. City Planner Smyser indicated affirmatively. 18 19 Councilmember Carlson referred to page 1001.3, the definition of buildable land. She stated she 20 understands why parkland was taken out, but not why slopes in excess of 18 percent was removed. 21 City Planner Smyser indicated that they have reviewed the entire buildable land issue from all angles. 22 He stated the goal was to get to a point where buildable land meant the same thing to everyone. He 23 stated that with slopes there is some interpretation leeway to determine where the edge of the slope . 24 starts. Therefore to simplify it was determined that buildable land means anything that is not wetland. 25 City Planner Smyser indicated that steep slopes are difficult to build on physically anyway and would 26 probably prevent people from asking to build. Staff wanted one definition for everything. He stated 27 that this provides a clearer definition and since there is not a lot of topography in Lino Lakes this 28 shouldn't be a problem. 29 30 Councilmember Carlson indicated that based on the likelihood that we won't see this she can let it 31 pass, but she's concerned it could leave a loophole that may increase density. City Planner Smyser 32 stated that was correct, if there was a piece of property with a lot of slopes it could increase the 33 density, possibly by one additional house. 34 35 Councilmember Carlson indicated on page 1002.3 and 1002.4, paragraphs 3a and 3b are being 36 changed from level of service C to level of service D. She asked if definitions could be provided for 37 C and D. City Planner Smyser indicated he would provide that to City Council. 38 39 Councilmember Carlson stated that paragraph 3d could be interpreted in several ways. The paragraph 40 states: 41 The traffic generated from a proposed subdivision shall not require City street improvements 42 that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital Improvement Plan or the developer shall 43 pay to correct any street deficiencies. 44 One way to interpret this would be that road work was being offered and developers may not be 45 required to pay for improvements. She indicated her husband read the paragraph and thought the 46 purpose was to protect developers from the City asking them to pay for more than they should. City •47 Planner Smyser indicated that paragraph will need to be reworked. 48 21