Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2002 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONI NG BOARD MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:37 p.m., September 11, 2002. Chair Schaps requested a moment of silen ce in remembrance of the victims and their families of September 11, 2001. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – August 14, 2002 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the August 14, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Corson abstained). IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:39 p.m. David McDonald, 790 Lois Lane, asked for cl arification regarding plans he had for an addition that he wanted to put on. He presented a diagram of his proposed plans for the Board’s review. He asked for the Boar d’s suggestions and recommendations. Chair Schaps stated he has had conversat ions with Mr. McDonald and Mr. Smyser regarding the expansion of hi s business, and asked if Mr. McDonald changed the wall construction, would it still be considered a pole barn. Mr . Smyser replied before Mr. DATE: September 11, 2002 TIME STARTED: 6:37 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:16 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyde n, Lyden, Schaps and Zych. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lane and Rafferty. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Tanda Gretz; James Studenski Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES McDonald built onto this building, it was a pole barn and he told Mr. McDonald as long as it did not fulfill the definition of a pole ba rn, there would be no problem. He stated as long as the building did not ha ve metal skin and poles in the ground, the City would not view this as a pole barn. However, he w ould still be required to meet the other Code requirements. He indicated this expansi on was a good idea, as long as it was not a pole barn construction. Mr. Lyden asked if the definition of a pole ba rn was the material that was used on the outside. Mr. Smyser replied that was one of the factors. Mr. Lyden pointed out the City should not have a problem with the metal roof, considering the City Hall had a metal roof. Chair Schaps asked if the building inspector could look at this to determine if it was a pole barn. Mr. Smyser replied he had check ed with the building inspector, and the building inspector agreed that as long as there were not both poles and metal skin on the building, it was not a pole barn. Mr. McDonald noted on the surveyor’s map he had received when he added the last addition on, it was noted that at some point in the future, he was intending on adding onto the back of the building. Chair Schaps informed Mr. McDonald to work closely with staff and submit a commercial site and building plan. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:50 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. V.ACTION ITEMS A. Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor Subdivision Staff explained Ms. Cardarelli and Mr. Severson are applying for a Minor Subdivision of approximately 32 acres of land, zoned Rural, on the 82XX block of West Rondeau Lake Road. The applicant would like to create two lots: one lot of 21.69 acres and one lot of 10.43 acres. Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 32-acre parcel. Parcel A, 21.69 acres, contains 22 % upland. Parcel B, 10.43 acres, does not have upland delineated on th e survey, but as aerial photos show the land to have been in agriculture (and now in pasture), meeting the 20% minimum upland requirement does not appear to be an issue. Staff explained the minimum lot size for propert y in a Rural zone is ten acres. Both of the two proposed lots will meet this requirement. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated the minimum lot width for propert y in a Rural zone is 330 feet, and both lots meet this requirement. In addition, both lots will have full frontage on a road, as required under the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinan ce, Section 1008.08, subdiv. 6, which states that “all lots shall abut for their fu ll frontage on a publicly dedicated street.” Staff noted all created lots are required to include drainage and utility easements. The applicant will need to dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City in accordance with Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance Section 1001.08, subdiv. 4. Such easements shall be five feet in width along side property lines, ten f eet in width al ong front and rear property lines, and cover a ll ponding and wetland areas. In addition, street right-of-way dedication wi ll be required accordi ng to the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance Section 1001.08, subdiv. 10. Staff stated it should be noted as a point of information that ther e is an existing 30-foot easement between the proposed parcels that se rves as a driveway to an existing lot of record (“Parcel C”) that li es between the two proposed lo ts on their southern boundary. This easement is not held by the City, but presumably exists solely for access purposes for Parcel C. Staff indicated Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.2.b states that parcels located within a zoning district that carries a minimum lot size of 10 acres must have a minimum of 20% buildable/upland area. Both of the proposed lots meet this requirement. Staff stated soils tests confirm that there are soils on both the propo sed parcels capable of accommodating a septic system, with enough room for both primary and secondary sites. In conclusion, staff noted the proposed Mino r Subdivision would result in two lots: Parcel A of 21.69 acres and Parcel B of 10.43 acr es. Both proposed lots would meet all minimum lot requirements, as established unde r the Lino Lakes City Code. As a result, staff would recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: 1.) A park dedication fee of $1,665 to be paid prior to the certifica tion and recording of the Minor Subdivision. 2.) The applicant shall dedicate to the City dr ainage and utility eas ements measuring ten feet in width along the front and rear prope rty lines, five feet in width along side property lines, and covering all ponding and wetland areas. Such dedication shall be in the form of a Quit Claim Deed, per the C ity attorney, to be submitted prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. 3.) The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 33-foot wide permanent public right-of-way adjacent to West Rondeau Lake Road. Such dedication shall be in the form of a Quit Claim Deed, per the City attorney, to be submitted prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make co mment. Applicants did not make comments. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve La raine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor Subdivision, subj ect to staff’s recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff’s report. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. B.Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, Variance Staff stated Michael and Laura Sullivan re side at 8065 Wood Duck Trail, a 2.89 acre lot that is zoned Rural. The Sullivans have ap plied for a Variance in order that they may locate a detached garage closer to the front lo t line than the principle building. Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordina nce states that “no detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot lin e than the principal building or its attached garage.” Staff noted the Sullivans home is sited 98 f eet back from Wood Duck Trail. Wood Duck Trail is classed as a minor collector street , which has a setback requirement of 40 feet. Staff indicated the property currently does not have a garage on site, although there is a 12’ X 16’ shed located to the northwest of the house. The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, Section 5, subdiv. 1.C.3, states “all dw ellings shall have a double garage.” Staff stated Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c states “no detached accesso ry structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the pr inciple building or its attached garage.” Staff indicated Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.8.d allo ws for 3,600 sq.ft. of accessory buildings, and up to two detached accessory buildings for a property of this size and zone. Staff indicated to satisfy or dinance requirements, a detach ed garage would have to be parallel with, or behind, the front line of the house. This is problematic on this site for three reasons. First, th e septic drain field is located a pproximately 24 feet to the south of the house, with the septic tank located so utheast of the house approximately the same distance. Second, the well is located to the north of the house approximately 25 feet. Thirdly, there is a pond located to the northwest of the house , directly in back of the current shed location. Each of these featur es act to preclude locating a garage in what would be a typical location next to, or behind, the house. As a result, staff stated the applicant is asking to be allowed to site a garage in a location to the side of, but in front of, the house. Su ch a site would put the garage closer to the street than the house, and thus violate Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c of the City Zoning Ordinance. Staff noted such a location, however, w ould meet the required 40-foot setback requirement from Wood Duck Lane. In a ddition, such a location would allow for the construction of a double garage, which the site currently does not ha ve, but is a building requirement for properties located in the Rura l zone. Lastly, a 24’ X 36’ detached garage Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES would be within the allowable size and num ber of accessory building allowed on a lot of this size and zone. Staff noted that at least one neighboring proper ty contains a garage which is sited closer to the street (8025 Wood Duck Trail). Staff stated the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance st ates that “in consid ering all requests for variance or appeal, and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: the property as a whole may be put to reasonable use, but official controls preclude the construction of a garage (w hich is a requirement under the Zoning Ordinance) in the only workable loca tion that is near the house. 2.) That the plight of the landow ner is due to physical circum stances unique to his property, not created by the landowner. Comment: The physical location of the se ptic tank, drain field, well and pond preclude siting a garage in a location which would satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Such a configuration of elements pr esents a situation unique to this property, although this situation was – at least in part – created by the (previous) landowner. 3.) That the hardship is not due to economic c onsiderations alone, and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: The demonstrated hardship is the la ck of a garage site t hat would satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Or dinance. Such a hardship is not economically motivated but, rather, site driven. While such a hards hip still allows for the reasonable use of the property, such a hardship does not allow the property to comply with the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that all dwellings in a Rural zone should have a double garage. 4.) That granting the variance reque sted will not confer on the a pplicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to ot her lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: There is no special privilege involved but, rather, a need/hardship that is site- driven. Other properties with similar site constraints would also be valid candidates for a Variance such as this one. 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance st ates that a double garage is a building requirement for property located in the Rura l zone. Granting this Variance would allow the applicants to comply with this requirement. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted this application for a Variance is dr iven by three site cons traints: location of a septic system, well, and a pond. Each of th ese constraints preven t siting the proposed garage in a location next to, or behind, th e house, in compliance with the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. As a result, staff feels th ere is a demonstrated need/hardship that is site-driven and quantifiable, a nd so justifiable. Staff would recommend approval of the proposed Variance with the following condition: 1.) The proposed garage be placed no closer than 62 feet from Wood Duck Trail. 2.) The 10 x 10 shed is to be removed. Mr. Lyden asked what was the number of accessory buildings. Ms. Gretz stated she believed it was two. Mr. Lyden stated when he drove out to the site, there were two sheds and asked if they were both owned by Mr. Sullivan. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Mr. Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, replied there was a 10x10 shed that would be taken down once they got a dumpster for the construction of the proposed garage. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Sullivan agreed to adding the 10 x 10 shed to be removed as a part of the conditions. Mr . Sullivan replied he did agree to that requirement. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to approve Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, Variance subject to staff’s recomme ndations and conditions as outlined in staff’s report. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4-0. C.Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street , Minor Subdivision & Variance Staff stated this item was presented at the August 14 th meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. After consideration of the issues, me mbers voted to table the application pending additional information from the applicant. Sp ecifically, Mr. Lindahl was asked to present alternate configurations for th e proposed one-acre lot (Tract B), in hopes that it might be possible to achieve the required 330 feet of lot width/road frontage. Mr. Lindahl has presented two alternate c onfigurations for consideration by members. Both proposals would meet the minimum lot wi dth/road frontage requirement of 330 feet. However, as a result of meeting the width requirement, lot size then increases over the one-acre threshold. Since there are only 11 acres total to be used between the two proposed lots, such an increase in the size of proposed Tract B, then decreases the size of proposed Tract A under the 10 acres minimum re quirement for property in a Rural zone. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Staff indicated Don and Faith Lindahl own 11 acres of land, zoned Rural, at 855 Ash Street. The Lindahls have applied for a Minor Subdivision and Variance from the minimum lot width requirements in order to subdivided their property. Although the minimum lot size for property in a Rural z one is 10 acres, the Lindahls are seeking to create a 10-acre and a one-acr e parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes City Code: “Habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten acres, or is serviced by public sewer, and it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will not result in ground water, soil or ot her contamination which may endanger the public health.” Staff noted the Lindahls propose to live on th e one-acre parcel cont aining the residence and outbuildings, and sell the remain ing ten-acre parcel to their son. Staff stated t\it should be noted that the existing 11-acre parcel was created in 1997 as part of a minor subdivision of 58.76 acres. Minutes from the meetings of both the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council note that a further subdivision of the 11- acre parcel, such as is now being proposed, was discussed at that time. Minutes note that the applicant “had been advised that split ting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probabl y not be recommended in this case.” Staff presented its analysis by noting the Certificate of Surv ey shows the proposed division of the 11-acre parcel. Tract B, one acre, contains the Lindahl home and outbuildings, of which .89 acres are upland; Tr act A, ten acres, contains the balance of the property, of which four acres are upland. Staff indicated the minimum lot size for prop erty in a Rural zone is ten acres. The proposed newly created lot would meet this re quirement, with the ba lance of the property consisting of the one-acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd.3.A.2.b.2. Staff noted the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet. Lot width is defined as “the horizontal dist ance between the side lot line of a lot measured at the building setback line and para llel to the front lot line.” Additionally, the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1001.08, subdiv. 6, requires that “all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a public ally dedicated street.” Staff stated Tract B at 155 feet, does not m eet the minimum lot width requirement, and, as a result, the applicant is asking for a Vari ance. With less than the required 330’ of lot width, then, Tract B also does not fulfill the requirement of having full frontage on a road. Staff noted Tract A is an irregularly shaped (“C-shaped”) lot that does not meet the minimum lot width requirement in terms of contiguous road width and road frontage. Rather, the lot wraps around the one acre parcel, with 269 feet to the west of the one acre Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES parcel and 188 feet to the east of the one acre parcel. Thus, alt hough the proposed lot has 330’ of width on a road, it is not contiguous width. Staff indicated Lino Lakes City Ordinanc e Section 3, subd. 3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of 20% upland area. Both parcels meet this requirement: the 10-acre pa rcel has four acres of upland, although this upland exists as “islands” among wetland area, and the one acre parcel is almost entirely composed of upland. Staff stated soils tests confirm that the proposed 10-acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic system. In addition, th ere is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The one-acre parcel alrea dy contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. Staff indicated the existing 11-acre parcel contains a sec ond driveway, not used by the Lindahls but existing on their property, that is the sole source of access for the neighboring property to the west, at 815 Ash St reet. Without this driveway, the property at 815 would be landlocked, with no access out to Ash Street or any other road. The minor subdivision approved in 1997, which crea ted the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street, required an easement agreement be drawn up for the driveway. This agreement was approved by the City attorney and recorded w ith Anoka County. In addition, as a further condition of approval, the driveway was approved by the Fire Chief. Staff noted the driveway is cu rrently used primarily by the residents at 815 Ash Street, as the Lindahls have their own access drive. Further subdivision of the 11-acre parcel would require shared use of this driveway, which may or may not pose a legal issue: the easement agreement states the easement is “f or the exclusive benefit of Tracts B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street).” Further, the agreement states that “no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the drivew ay and utility easement.” The agreement can be amended only with the wr itten consent of both parties. Staff stated the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that “in consid ering all requests for variance or peal and in taki ng subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: The property has been, and curren tly is, being put to reasonable use. The applicant is simply asking for a further intensification of use. 2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, not created by the land owner. Comment: The landowner is asking for a fu rther subdivision of his land, which he was advised “would probably not be recommended” when he first purchased his property. 3.) That the hardship is not due to econom ic considerations alone and when a Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: There is no hardship demonstr ated or apparent; rather the proposed lots simply do not meet the minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone. 4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be deni ed by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances would confer upon the applicant special privilege. 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keep ing with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with th e spirit and intent of the Ordinance, as Variances are to be granted only in cases where hardship/unique physical ci rcumstances are present. Staff noted the proposed Minor Subdivision w ould result in two lots : Tract B would have a width of 155 feet, thus not meeting the minimum lot width requirement of 330’ for property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full frontage on a road; Tract A would have 330’ of width and road frontage, but it would not be conti guous width or frontage. Alternate configurations presented by the applicant meet the minimum lot width/road frontage, but do not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres. As a result, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. Staff noted as there are no hardship issues or unique circumst ances apparent on the property, staff cannot recommend approva l of a Variance from the lot width requirements. Chair Schaps asked if they made the smaller lot bigger, was that the only flaw. Ms. Gretz replied that was correct. Mr. Lyden stated the reason they had mi nimum lot frontage was to have orderly development in the future. He noted the reality was that this was the right way to develop this property. He noted there was not going to be development around this property because there was wetland on one side and a cemetery on the other side. Chair Schaps stated in this case were w ould likely be no development alongside of this property. Mr. Lyden stated in his opini on the first option presented la st month was the best option. Mr. Zych asked if there was a park dedication fee to be paid. Ms. Gretz replied the park dedication would be $1,685 and appli cant was aware of this amount. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Don Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, stated he preferred to go back to his original plan with the one-acre. He stated that op tion worked the best for all of the buildings that was on the one-acre parcel. He indicate d his second choice would be opt ion 3. He stated he would want to record to reflect that the one par cel was not 10 acres so a future buyer would not have a problem obtaining a building permit. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, with option number one as outlined in staff’s report. Mr. Lyden requested Mr. Lindahl obtain so me written agreement with the neighbor regarding use of the driveway. Mr. Lindahl replied all of that land would be owned by Tract A, so it would be entirely owned by the new owner, and the new owner would be informed to work out the driveway easem ent with the neighbor and this requirement would be made at the time the land was tr ansferred. He noted his neighbor was very agreeable to working with this situation. Ms. Gretz requested the fo llowing three conditions: 1.Park dedication fee to be paid 2.Standard drainage and utility easements 3.Right-of-Way as required by Anoka County. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3-1 (Hyden). D.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Behm’s Century Farm 6 th – 10 th Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St. Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Staff stated the P & Z continued the public hearing on this project at the August 14 meeting. There were a number of issues to be resolved. Staff noted major design issues include acce ss and roads, parklan d, potential new air park lots, air park impacts, wetlands, and future development on surrounding lands. Staff indicated the applicant submitted new plans on Wednesday, September 4. This did not allow time for staff to review and analyze the new submittals. Staff stated road access and connections ar e important design issues. The question of connecting Carl St. was discussed extensivel y at the August meeting. This is a major issue, and it affects numerous other aspects of the project and of this area of the City. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Staff is asking the P & Z to consider the following information and then give staff direction on whether or not Carl St. should be connected. Based on that direction, staff will work with the applicant on the design of the plat. Staff stated the applicant hired a consulta nt to prepare a traffic study. The study was summarized at the August meeting. At that time, staff had not had the opportunity to review the traffic study. The City Engineer now has had the applicant’s traffic study analyzed. That analysis is attached (TKDA memo from Steven Elmer, August 23). Note that several assumptions and conclusions in the study may not be universally accepted. Staff noted the majority of P & Z member s voiced opposition to connecting Carl St. to the new development. At the same time, most P & Z members expressed support for new air park lots that would each accommodate a home and a hanger. Staff indicated it would seem th at the best way to incorporate new air park lots would be to design them to be part of the existing air park. If this is to occur, they should be connected to the existing air park lots along Ca rl St. If Carl St. does not connect, the new air park lots will be separated from the re st, which would seem to violate the concept of an air park “neighborhood”. Staff indicated therefore, if new air park lots are to be created with the Behm’s plat, Carl St. should connect to the new plat. Staff stated existing air park lots on Carl St. are 373’ deep, with widths ranging from 123’ to 178’ (1.1 acre to 1.5 acre). The hangers can be up to 3200 sf. The size of any new air park lots should accommodate the houses, hangers, and taxiways. Staff noted one of the options presented by the project applicant is th e future creation of a road along the powerline easeme nt to provide access to 4 th Ave. and a connection between 4 th Ave. and Sunset Rd. At the A ugust meeting, discussion included the likelihood of future opposition to this c onnection by residents of the new Behm’s neighborhood—the neighborhood that will be created by the plat under consideration. Staff believes that the opposition that will o ccur will most likely prevent the connecting road from being constructed. Staff indicated there are physical design issu es to consider as well. The powerline easement is 90 feet wide. If a road is buil t along the northern edge of the easement, the powerline easement will cover the front 90 feet of the lots fronting on the road. The houses will have to be setback at least 90 feet to be out of the easement, with 90’ driveways. The front yards will have high voltage powerlines crossing them. This does not seem to be a very inviting neighborhood desi gn. Even if the paved road is offset as close as possible to the towers, at least 50-60 feet of front yards will be under the powerline easement with the wires overhead. Staff stated since the property on which this hypothetical road is located is not being developed, we have no design that shows a road and plat layout that could be workable. Lacking this, it is impossible to know the f easibility of developing the property with a road connecting the Behm’s development with 4 th Ave. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted the property on which this hypothe tical road would be built is guided as a Stage 2 (post 2010) area. Because of this, it will not be allowed to develop for some time, if ever. In addition, the comprehens ive plan clearly requires decreasing the amount of annual growth. There is no way to know wh en this property will be developed and the road will be built. Mr. Lyden stated his first point of concern was whether a road was 44 feet wide or 36 feet wide and noted that were would be a lot of pedestrians using the road. He stated he believed they would need to have a trail in this area also. Mr. Smyser replied they were proposing a 36-foot wide road with a trail on the side, se parated from the road. He pointed out if they were just doing it as a lo cal road, they would need to go back and look at the design. John Johnson, Director of Engineering, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, 412 County Road D, Little Canada, asked they ad dress the collector roads tonight only so they could move on with the design. He presented diagrams of the proposal for the Board’s review and comment. Mr. Zych noted that emergency vehicle access was an issue that needed to be addressed. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Zych noted his concern wa s not just for emergency vehi cles, but for public concern as well. Mr. Corson stated they would not be making any decisions tonight, but would be giving direction. Chair Schaps asked what other options would they have to make an east-west connection. Mr. Johnson replied there were no other options. Chair Schaps asked if he believed it was a good idea to create two air park neighborhoods. Mr. Johnson replied there wa s already a north and south air park neighborhood. He indicated there was no connect ion between the east and west lots on the south side because of a ditch. He stated the neighbors had asked they create additional air park lots. He stated as far as if it was important for the air park neighborhood to be connected, the neighbors woul d be the best ones to ask that question to. Bonnie Bigler, 346 Carl Street, stated the air strip was the neighborhood and that was what connected them. She indicated they had no problem having any other type of a connection. Mike Cirese (?sp), 215 Palomino Lane, agreed that the air strip was the community. He pointed out a group of people with a common in terest formed a tight bond. He stated this was a good community to live in and noted ro ads would not divide them. He stated he supported his community and if there was a wa y to have Carl Street remain the way it was, that was what he supported. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps asked if it would drastically a ffect him, if it were extended. Mr. Cirese replied it would not affect him, but he coul d see his neighbor’s point of view regarding traffic. Dave Ramsden, 302 Carl Street, stated he was against this proposal. He indicated he did not understand why emergency vehicle access came into play right now. He indicated he did not like the curving of the proposed road and expressed concern that the road would be too close to the ditch. Jim Obowa, representative of Lino Air Park, stated he had seen the plans and from the neighborhood’s perspective, they would want the connector road to the north and not on Carl Street. Chair Schaps asked if he understood the c oncerns about the emergency vehicle access. Mr. Obowa replied he did. Mr. Lyden stated he had not seen anything fr om the police department, fire department, etc. that there was a concern and requested seeing something in writing. Mr. Smyser replied they would follow-up and obtain a report. Mr. Zych noted that this was an opportunity to do this right and allow for sufficient emergency vehicle access. Chuck Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, expressed concern about the “jogging” of the proposed Carl Street. He noted an emergency vehicle would not make this jog without considerably slowing down. He stated he did not want arrows in his front yard indicating the street curved to the right. He indicat ed an emergency vehicle could not make it any faster into the development by taking Carl becau se of the jogs in the road. He stated he believed the City already had their mind made up to put Carl Street through. He expressed concern about vehicles ending up in his front yard or house because they could not make the turn. He stated most reside nts on Carl Street were opposed to this. He urged the Board to see his point of view as a homeowner in the City. Tom Schmelzer, 398 Carl Street, supported the c onnection of Carl Street. He expressed concern about dividing up the neighborhood by not expanding Carl Str eet. He stated it was unfortunate developments were not inte grated as a main design. He expressed concern for the safety of landing aircraft. Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, agreed with Mr. Kolstad that with two outlets going to Sunset should be adequate for emergency vehi cles and the proposed be nds in Carl Street, was dangerous. He stated they had been to ld they would be living on a cul-de-sac. He pointed out anybody moving into the new development would know where the collector street were, but they were told they had a cul-de-sac. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue th e Public Hearing to the October, 2002 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Lyden requested public safety information regarding specifics. He requested the Air Park officers get together and come up with a list of what their concerns were. He stated they did not have the right to destroy a current neighborhood for the development of a new neighborhood. Chair Schaps agreed the Air Park needed to submit a letter and requested they address if the extension of the street in any fashion would affect their pr operty, their neighborhood, etc. He invited anyone else in that nei ghborhood to also offer opi nions in writing. He stated overall he had a concern about emergency vehicle access into the new development. He stated an alternative w ould be for Mr. Uhde to purchase the sod farm property, but there would still be challenges Mr. Uhde would need to work out. He noted sometimes the public safety of everyone became more important than one group of people. He believed Carl should be expanded. Mr. Corson stated he did not believe he had enough information on option B to know if he should agree with that one or not. He stated he agreed they needed a connection. Mr. Zych stated he wanted Ca rl Street to be connected. Mr. Hyden stated he believed they needed a connection. Linda Eckart, asked for clarific ation about the distance issue wh en they referred to safety. Chair Schaps stated future development woul d be within the square she had described and stated they wanted a connection in the middle of the square to allow for emergency vehicle access. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Lyden asked under action item 5A there we re a couple of easemen ts that needed to be conveyed to the City and inquired as to how that would be accomplished. Mr. Smyser replied what the City was doing now was when these types of conditions were placed on a property, the City required the deeds to be conveyed to the City before it got recorded by the County. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc . Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES