Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2002 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 6:31 p.m., December 11, 2002. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 13, 2002 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Lyden abstained). IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:33 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5-0. V.ACTION ITEMS A.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1 st – 7 th Additions (formerly Behm’s Century Farms 6 th – 10 th Additions), South of DATE: December 11, 2002 TIME STARTED: 6:31 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:58 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Schaps and Zych. MEMBERS ABSENT: Rafferty. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Jam es Studenski; Bob Kirmis (NAC) Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Main St. & North of Carl St. – Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Staff explained Century Farm North Development, Inc. has requested approval of a 250 unit, low and medium density residential development (Century Farm North) located upon a 95.1 acre site north of Thomas St reet and east of Sunset Road. Specifically, the proposed calls for 27 low density and 223 medium density units upon 85.3 net acres of land resulting in a net density of 2.93 units per acre. Staff presented its analysis by explaining wh ile the physical charact eristics of the site make development challenging, such characteris tics also offer unique design possibilities. The northeasterly portion of the site is open meadow with scattered brush and trees. The southern portion of the site includes w ooded areas, wetlands and a County ditch and borders the Lino Air Park. The western porti on of the site is somewhat fragmented due to a number of property exceptions along S unset Road and includes several acres of unbuildable wetland areas. Staff stated with respect to the MUSA Reserve Allocation, to accommodate the proposed development, the allocation of 85.3 acres of MUSA will be necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the urbaniza tion of the subject prop erty, such allocation is considered appropriate. Staff noted with respect to Land Use and Zoni ng, the City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for sewered low density residential uses in the southwest portion of the site and low density/medium density uses on the balance of the site. While, the proposed land use designations are consistent with the land us e directives of the Comprehensive Plan, concern exists that the appl icant is proposing to apply th e R-3 zone to numerous single family lots within the subdivision. Cons idering that the R-3 zoning district does not allow single family dwellings, it is suggested that the R-1 designation be applied to the single family dwellings in the subdivision and that the R-3 designation be applied to the areas in which multi-family units are proposed. Staff noted that the rezoning request also includes a PDO, Planned Develop Overlay to allow airplane hangers, private streets and multiple buildings on a single lot. Additionally, the PDO can accommodate the proposed detached townhome development concept (a deviation from R-1 District requirements). Staff stated it is the intent of the applican t to locate the varied hous ing types such that a transition in land use intensity exists. Gene rally speaking, low intensity residential uses are proposed in the southwestern corner of the site with hi gher density townhomes located in the northeast corner of the pr operty. The proposed land use transition is consistent with the land use directives of the Comprehensive Plan and is considered a positive aspect of the development plan. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES While the location of the various unit types are considered acceptable, examples of the proposed housing types should be submitted fo r review as a condition of PDO approval. With respect to density, staff stated, the development proposal calls for a total of 250 dwelling units resulting in an overall net density of 2.89 units per acre. The proposed densities consistent with the di rectives of the Comprehensive Plan and are therefore considered acceptable. With respect to street configuration, sta ff indicated the Carl Street/Century Trail extension through the site is considered posi tive as it fulfills a di rective of the City’s Transportation Plan. While the street is not a continuous, uninterr upted collector street route, the intersection in the southeast corner of the site is considered an acceptable compromise considering traffic speed related concerns voiced by area residents. Several issues regarding the proposed street configuration and resu lting traffic flow do however exist as summarized below (see attached development plan alternative for graphic reference): • The connection to Carl Street should be made as part of the proposed development. While such connection may not be immediate (constructed as part of the first phase of the development), the physical connection of the two street segments is imperative. • To improve vehicular convenience, provid e a more efficient traffic flow and minimize home exposure to oncoming traffic however, it is recommended that the street located approximately 150 feet nor th of the Carl Street/Century Trail intersection be shifted southward to create a four way intersection. • The “L” shaped cul-de-sac in the southwest corner shoul d be shifted approximately 150 feet to the east to align wi th the street to the south. • The cul-de-sac south of Carl Street in the southeast corner of the site lies approximately150 feet from what is likely to be a high volume intersection. The spacing of such intersection should be increased to minimize turning maneuver/vehicular stacking conflicts. It is recognized that such ea sterly shift of the intersection may result in the loss of an airpark lot (Lot 9, Block 5). While most “traditional” single-family lo ts have been found to meet or exceed to minimum R-1 district dimensional requirement s, several concerns exist as summarized below: • Lots 1 and 13, Block 2 have been found to measure only 95 feet in width. As corner lots, their width should be increased to 100 feet as required within R-1 zoning districts. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES • In review of the grading and drainage pla n, there appears to be substantial topography upon Lot 12, Block 2 which may limit its buildab ility. As a result, it is recommended that the applicant demonstrate its buildabil ity via the submission of a custom plan. • Considering that Carl Street/Century Trail is expected to be a high volume roadway, it is believed the impact of such ro adway upon Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (at the intersection of Sunset Road and Century Trail) could be lessened by providing interior access to such lots from the nor theast via the “L” shaped cul-de-sac. In conjunction with such modification, screen ing could be provided in the rear yard areas at the Sunset/Century Trail inte rsection (see attached development plan alternative). • The home and driveway upon Lot 20, Block 2 s hould be re-oriented toward the cul-de sac. • One final concern relates to Lots 6 and 7, Block 6 (as depicted on the preliminary site plan) where it appears the side lot line be tween the two lots was inadvertently not shown. In regard to Lot 7, Block 6 specifi cally, it is recommended that the driveway of such lot be oriented to the west ra ther than the south (to eliminate driveway maneuvering at what is expected to be a busy intersection and no t to isolate the home from neighboring dwellings). With respect to the Airpark lots, staff stated, as shown on the submitted development plans, the subject site bord ers the Lino Airpark and includes 15 “airpark” lots. To accommodate such lots, the processing of a PDO is necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the airpark as a long-term use within the City and that non-inhabitable structures over the gas line are preferred, th e inclusion of such lots is considered generally acceptable. In regard to such lots however, some concerns do exist as summarized below: • The locations of Lots 4 and 9, Block 4. Of primary concern is the location of an airpark lot (Lot 4. Block 4) between two “t raditional” single family lots and the adjacency of Lots 5-8, Block 4 to the airpark taxiway and hanger building. To address this concern, it is suggested that Lot 4 be converted from an “airpark” to “traditional” single family lot and that Lot 9 be eliminated combined with the lots to the north to create a buffer yard. • The impact of runway safety zone extens ions upon area lots. As a condition of PUD approval, the applicant should provide docum entation to the City that all applicable runway safety zone requirement s have or will be satisfied. • Anticipated market demand for the airpark lo ts. The applicant has indicated that if demand for the airpark lots does not exis t, they would likely be converted to “traditional” single-family lots. Such ch ange would require the processing of a PDO amendment. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES • The size of the hangers appears equal to the si ze of the homes they are to serve. As a condition of PUD approval, specific hanger designs should be submitted subject to City approval. • The direct visual (and audibl e) exposure of both hangers and the taxiway to Century Trail (in the southeast corner of the plat). While this has been addressed to some extent via landscaping, it is suggested th at a berming along the street segment be provided as well. Townhome Issues Architecture. As a PDO, the City is afforded an opportunity to impose conditions related to the appearance of the townhomes. While specific townhome building elevations have not been submitted, the plan drawings illustra te a “garage forward” design. Recognizing this and to avoid visual monotony, creative bui lding design is considered very important. As a condition of PDO approval, specifi c townhome building elevations should be submitted subject to City approval. Parking. According to the Ordinance, townhomes are required to provide at least two and one-half rent-free spaces per unit. The Ordinance further stat es that for projects involving eight or more units, the City may require additional clustered guest parking. While the “per unit” parking requirement has been satisfied, it should be noted that the proposed private street widths (16to 18 feet) prohibit on-street parking. Therefore, as a condition of PDO approval, the townhome area in the northeast corner of the site should be modified to incorporate specific visitor parking areas. Homeowners Association. Acco rding to the applicant, the pr oject will be subject to the bylaws of three homeowner’s associations. From the City’s pers pective, such bylaws should address issues associated with open sp ace use and private street maintenance. As a condition of PDO approval, all homeowner association by-laws should be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Exceptions. As shown on the submitted development plans, a number of property exceptions exist west of the subject proper ty along Sunset Road. In considering the proposed development, an assurance should be made that, to the extent possible, opportunities for future subdivisi on are provided. This is pa rticularly relevant in that Sunset Road is a designated collector street and direct single family lot access to such streets are to be discouraged. Appropriately, an opportunity for future subdi vision of the northerl y extension has been provided via access to Stallion Road. Considering home placement and wetland infringements, street access to the southe rly exception is not c onsidered practical. Wetlands. Three designated wetlands are located w ithin the central area of the property and comprise a significant portion of the si te. Such wetlands are considered a site amenity and obviously influence the configura tion of the development. As required by ordinance, a wetland mitigation plan has been submitted for review. Such plan should be Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. To date, the City has no information regarding the Watershed District review Greenways. The concept plan illustrates a series of interconnecting eight foot wide bituminous trails. While the inclusion of the trails in considered positive, it would seem appropriate to extend the east/west trail segm ent beneath the power easement to the west to connect to Sunset Road. The acceptability of the trailways in fulfilling the greenway directive of the Comprehensive Plan should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Park Board. Park Dedication. As shown on the Parks/Open Space Plan, a significant portion of the subject property is to be dedicated as public park land. Specifi cally, the concept plan provides 22.5 acres of gross public park la nd, 7.3 acres of which is contiguous upland. The integration of such park areas responds to a specific directive of the Comprehensive Plan of providing a greenway in the area. While the inclusion of such park land is considered positive, an assurance should be made that problems do not result from the combination of private and public park owne rship. Of specific concern is that the primary east/west trailway through the property be available to all park users (regardless of private and public ownership). As a condition of PDO approval, park relate d issues raised by the Park Board should be addressed. Tree Preservation. According to the app licant, a significant amount of existing tree massings in the southern portion of the site are to be preserved. While the existing conditions map identifies generalized tree massi ngs, a specific tree i nventory has not, to date, been submitted. Because the Subdivision Ordinance does not specifically mandate the submission of a tree inventory, the need for such invent ory should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Environmental Board and City Officials. Easements. The subdivision design is responsive to the 90’ electrical easement and 60’ gas easement that traverse the property. As shown on the submitted plan, a trail has been proposed within the electrical easement while airpark hanger s border the gas easement in the southeast corner of the property. As shown on the preliminary plat, drainage and utility easements have been proposed along all property lines and over wetland a nd ponding areas. The acceptability of such easements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Carl Street Vacation. To accommodate the developm ent proposal, the vacation of a portion of Carl Street will be necessary. Such vacation will require a separate public hearing to be held by the City Council. Issu es associated with th e street vacation should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Traffic Generation. Issues related to traffic ge neration and the ability of the development proposal to accommodate such traffic should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the u tility related modifications and comments as set forth by the City Engineer shoul d be incorporated into the plans. Landscaping. As required by Ordinance, landscape plan has been submitted for review. The plan calls for a series of overstory tr ees along the public streets and a combination of understory and evergreen trees scattered throughout th e site. Evergreen trees have been specifically proposed in areas where screening is desired (i.e. between Century Trail and the airpark hangers). As a condition of PDO approval, the landscape plan should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Environmental Board. Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of prelim inary plat approval, th e grading and drainage related modifications and comments as se t forth by the City Engineer should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is also subject to review and a pproval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Environmental Issues. The Environmental Board reviewed the request at their December 5, 2002 meeting. Their comments are attached to this report. Rice Creek Watershed District Review. The proposed development is subject to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) approval. To date, comments from the District regarding the acceptability of th e project have not been received. As a condition of PDO approval, all conditions imposed by the Wa tershed District must be satisfied. Development Agreement. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant will be required to enter into a developmen t agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. RECOMMENDATION While the proposed development concept and its arrangement of land uses and streets is considered generally acceptable, numerous outstanding issues remain, which should be addressed prior to the development proce ss moving forward. As a result, we cannot recommend approval until the fo llowing issues are addressed: Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES 1. The base R-1 district zoni ng designation be specifically applied to single family dwelling areas within the project and the base R-3 designation be applied to the multi- family areas. 2. The Carl Street connection be physically constructed as part of the development proposal. 3. Lots 1 and 13, Block 2 be increased from 95 to 100 feet in width as required within R-1 zoning districts. 4. The home and driveway upon Lot 20, Block 2 be re-oriented toward its bordering cul- de sac. 5. The applicant demonstrate the buildability of Lot 12, Block 2 via the submission of a custom plan. 6. Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (at the intersection of Sunset Road and Century Trail) be re- oriented and provided interior access from th e northeast via the “L” shaped cul-de-sac. In conjunction with such modification, screening be provided in the rear yard areas of the lots (at the Sunset/Cen tury Trail intersection) 7. The preliminary site plan be revised to illustrate a side lot line between Lots 6 and 7, Block 6. 8. The driveway of Lot 7, Block 6 be orient ed to the west rather than the south. 9. Examples of the proposed townhome housing types and building elevations be submitted for review and City approval. 10. The street located approximately 150 feet north of the Carl Street/Century Trail intersection be shifted southward to create a full, four-way intersection. 11. The “L” shaped cul-de-sac in the southeast co rner of the site (north of Century Trail and East of Sunset Road) be shifted approxima tely 150 feet to the eas t to align with the street to the south. 12. The cul-de-sac south of Carl Street (in the southeast corner of the site) be shifted eastward to maximize spacing from the Ca rl Street/Century Trail intersection. 13. Lot 4, Block 4 be converted from an “airpar k” to a “traditional” single family lot. 14. Lot 9, Block 4 (an airpark lot) be eliminated and combined with the adjacent “traditional” single family lots to the nor th (to allow the creation of a buffer yard). 15. The applicant provide documentation to the City that all applicable runway safety requirements have or will be satisfied. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES 16. Specific hanger designs be submitted subject to City approval. 17. To minimize direct visual and audible exposure of the hangers and taxiway to Century Trail (in the southeas t corner of the plat), berm ing (in addition to the proposed landscaping) be provided along the street segment. 18. The townhome area in the northeast corner of the site be modified to incorporate specific visitor parking areas. 19. All homeowner association by-laws be s ubject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 20. The wetland mitigation plan be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. All conditions imposed by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be satisfied. 21. Issues raised by the park Board in rega rd to greenway/park land dedication are reviewed and addressed to th e satisfaction of the City. 22. The need for the submission of a tree inventory be subject to comment and recommendation by the Environmental Board and determined by City Officials. 23. Grading, drainage and utility related modifi cations and comments as set forth by the City Engineer be incor porated into the plans. 24. The landscape plan be subject to comment and recommendation by the Environmental Board. 25. The City formally vacate the segment of Carl Street which lies with in the subject site. 26. Issues related to traffic generation and the ability of the development proposal to accommodate such traffic be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Chair Schaps asked if staff believed this development was ready to proceed. Mr. Kirmis replied it was not. He noted applicant had a ddressed some of the issues since his report, but there were many issues still outstanding. Mr. Corson asked what the hangers were made of. Mr. Kirmis replied he believed they were metal pole buildings. Mr. Corson asked if there were any thoughts re garding the hangers as far as consistency. Mr. Kirmis replied this would be a whole discussion in itself. Mr. Lyden asked when the change in density occurred. Mr. Kirmis replied it was a very late change in the plan. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Lyden asked if this was before or after the first public hearing. Mr. Kirmis replied he did not have that information. Chair Schaps clarified staff’s recommendation that they were requesting this be tabled until staff’s concerns were addressed. Mr. Kirmis replied that was correct. Ms. Lane asked if they had as many MUSA acr es as they were referring to. Mr. Lyden stated they had approved a new bank. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Gary Uhde, developer and John Johnson, Metro Land Surveying and Engineering. Mr. Uhde thanked the P&Z Board and members of the staff for their assistance with this development. He noted they had worked extensively with the neighborhood and the Airpark Association. He stated they had work ed diligently with a ll of those parties that answered or tried to be sensi tive to all of their concerns. He noted there were some very sensitive environmental issues and he acknow ledged there were issues with density and stated they had taken the minimum density as possible. He stated they had a difference of opinion with staff regarding traffic. He stated they hoped to have consistent colors, overheads and eves on the hangers that w ould fit better into the neighborhood. He indicated he would work with the Airpark Association regarding the hangers. He noted the plan was not perfect; it did not give everyone everythi ng they wanted, but it was the best they could do at this time. John Johnson stated in August they were made aware of the change in the Comprehensive Plan that changed the 78 acres that was the bulk of this 95 acre project, which changed from low/medium density to medium density. He stated when they applied the medium density to the developer acres, that threw 90 plus units into the mix that they had not planned on. He stated they were told they needed to comply with the Comprehensive Plan or get an amendment. He stated this plan addressed all of those density issues. He stated he was not going to debate the good or the bad of the density; they were just attempting to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained how they addressed the traffic issues and concerns that staff had. He st ated they had expanded the park and trails. He indicated they increased the ponding and wetland from 9.77 acres to 17.5 acres in this plan. He stated in the landscape plans they showed 1100 trees as being placed on this project. He noted they identified installation of the native grasses. He stated to the Park Board and the Envi ronmental Committee had approved this plan. He stated the Airpark lots had been incr eased. He stated the Airpark Association requested to buffer as much of their runway out lot with airpark user lots. He stated the elimination of lots 4 and 9 in Block 4 would remove over 350 feet of buffer and add 3 non Airpark lots with direct access and abutti ng the runway outlot. He noted the phasing plan was outlined in their propos al. He stated it was important to have all four products in their first phase for marketing. He note d if they started construction in April, 2003, they hoped to have the models open in Oct ober, 2003. He stated they anticipated they could market 40 units the first year, so th ey would be at the end of 2004 before they started moving forward with plans for the second addition and when the second addition was approved in 2005, they would be out of lo ts, if they did an 80 lot subdivision. He Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES noted option 1, divided that into a 61 lot pha se one with no connect ion to Carl and the connection to Carl would be done in the second phase and there would be no detached townhomes. He noted they would like to do option two. He handed out a memorandum to the Commission responding to staff’s recomm endations on the project. He stated they would attempt to coordinate the hangers as much as possible. He stated they had addressed all but eight of staff’s 26 concerns. Mr. Lyden stated he was for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted it was possible to get a quality product in this development. He stated he had a concern about the density issues. He stated the people w ho were responsible for a quality development were the people on this Board and the City Council. He noted the Metropolitan Council could not tell the City what to put on this land. He expressed concern about traffic on Carl Street. He indicated they had told peop le that Carl Street would never be connected. He asked if emergency vehicles could ge t through there, but nobody else. Mr. Johnson replied it would be possible to make a cul-de -sac at the end of the street and have the connection only be for emergency vehicles. Mr. Lyden stated the Metropo litan Council did not care that Lino Lakes had extensive wetlands, and high density did not work in Lino Lakes. He stated they did not have the capability to handle it. Ms. Lane asked if something was designated a certain density, that they could build lower density, but they could not go higher density. She asked if they could go with a lower density. Chair Schaps asked if they were of the opi nion, except for the 8 items, did they believe they were ready to go forward. Mr. Johnson stated he believed except for those items, they could address all of the other issues. Chair Schaps invited the public for their comments. Dave Hunter, Airpark Association, stated th ey had been trying to watch what was going to happen in this development for many year s and at one point, they felt that the development of the area was going in a way that was not going to be in the benefit of the Airpark’s interest, so they approached th e City and asked them about what type of flexibility they had with negot iating with the developer. Th e City told him they could not dictate what Mr. Uhde was going to do with the land, and it was up to the developer to negotiate. He stated the Airpark Associat ion had many meetings with Mr. Uhde and he stated he felt Staff was interfering with thei r negotiations with Mr. Uhde. Specifically, he stated Carl Street had been negotiated with Mr. Uhde that Carl Street should not go through, or if it had to go through it went th rough as emergency access only. He stated he applauded Mr. Johnson’s e fforts in trying to build the streets in a traffic calming manner to reduce the traffic as much as possible and by including a four way stop, it would only increase the traffic. He stated the concern with the “L” shaped cul-de-sac was that there was a delineation of their safe ty zones and as long as it did not infringe upon those safety zones, they were okay with the plan, but this was a concern. In terms of a cul-de-sac for Carl Street, Mr. Johnson sa id he could move that farther east, and as long as the cul-de-sac would maintain the cl earance within regulation, they did not have Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES any problems with it. He noted with Lot 14, if it were up to the Ai rpark, all of the lots west of that lot would also be Airpark lot. He stated sta ff’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 ther e would not be a feeling of Airpark people versus non-Airpark people. He noted they want ed 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 rema ined 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 th e hangers to blend in well with the area. He stated to just make a simple change to a ha nger, that was a huge expense. He stated an Airpark hanger was an Airpark hanger and he requested they not pu t further restrictions on those hangers. He stated the Association did have a hanger approval process as a part of the Airpark, and if they need ed City input that would be fine, but they did not want to make this a political process. He stated al l 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 repl ied they suggested it no longer be an Airpark lot. Mr. Hyden asked if he needed to own a plan e to put up a hanger. Mr. Hunter stated as part of owning a lot in the Airpark, he coul d put up a hanger, even if he did not own a plane, as long as it complied with the regul ations of the Airpar k and the Airpark dues were paid. Mr. Corson asked if the Airpark would also re view the hanger plans prior to them being put up. Mr. Hunter replied that had not be en the case before, but they would not oppose reviewing hanger plans. Chair Schaps asked if the Airpark Associati on ever reviewed any of the covenants and declarations of Century Farm with the con tinued 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 ha d was with density. He stated high density townhomes with alleys would not match the Ci ty 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 Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES appealing. He expressed concern about sound and light pollution. He requested they go back to the original plan with fewer homes noting this would be more appealing to the residents. Jeff Kolstad, Carl Street, stated this was his third time at these meeting and he noted he was still against Carl Street being connected because of the placement of his home. He stated the history of the development and Ca rl Street was completed with requirements that Carl Street would not be connected. He stated if the street were to go through, it would hinder his property the way it was now . He stated there was no room for the street. He stated they could use the sod fi elds for development, if necessary and leave Carl Street as it was. He noted the sod fi eld owner was willing to sell his property for development. He stated a road through the sod fields was a better option, than extending Carl Street through. He indicated he had met with the Police and Fire Chiefs and inquired about emergency vehicle routes. He st ated they told him that they would always take the most immediate route. They tried to avoid going through residential neighborhoods. He stated they i ndicated they would not use Carl Street as an alternative emergency access because that was not the most direct way to get into the development. He stated the City had not done their homewor k and came up with facts. He noted if Carl Street was moved, he would have no choice, except to go across his neighbor’s property to get out of his driveway to get to the road. However, he stated he would prefer that option rather than a cul-de-sac on his propert y. He stated he had no choice on building his home, except where it was at because of the topography of the land and now the City wanted to put the road right in his front yard. He noted a petition had been submitted previously to the City reques ting Carl Street not go through, a nd he believed the City was not concerned about what the residents wanted. Jeff Morell, stated he was the most affected property owner in th is development. He stated he was concerned about Carl street going through. He expressed concern about the construction equipment on Sunset and the ruining of the roa d. He asked if he would be able to hook up to sewer and water in the future . Chair Schaps replied he did not have a definite answer for him, but he believed he would be able to. Mr. Morell asked why there was no senior hous ing in this development. He requested when the development went ahead, he not be left behind. He asked if there was any consideration being made along Sunset. He not ed the traffic had drastically increased on Sunset over the years. Mr. Lyden stated he was concerned about th e Carl Street connection. He stated he thought the Board had requested police and fi re input regarding the connection of Carl Street. He again requested staff to get this information for the Board. Chair Schaps stated there were still a numbe r of things needed to be resolved and he believed it required more time. Mr. Ki rmis replied he agreed with that. Chair Schaps asked the Board members if th ey should continue the Public Hearing until January, 2003. He thanked applicant for their e fforts, but stated there was still work to do. Mr. Johnson requested they tell them which side the Board wanted to be on to clarify everything. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Johnson stated the County did not anticip ate Sunset would need widening, except for turning lanes, which was their responsibilit y. He stated he did not know about the repaving of the street. He stated they would look at life styl e housing brought up by the previous gentleman if the Board wanted them to. Mr. Corson stated he wanted to see some idea of the hanger design and the types of materials used. He requested they be of a c onsistent color. He noted a resident had a concern regarding the lack of basements in the homes and asked they look into the possibility of a community storm shelter. W ith respect to Carl Street, it appeared they made an attempt to slow traffic through ther e, but asked them to look at another way of slowing traffic by maybe more stop signs. Mr. Johnson replied the east half of the existing Carl Street was 24 feet and the west ha lf was a 30 foot. He stated there was a big “S” curb in the middle of that, which would no t meet the criteria for 30 mph. He stated if they wanted the street connected, then they could look at further options to reduce and slow down the traffic. He stated the best traffic calming devise on Carl Street was to not connect it. He stated they also had a “T ” intersection which would lead to traffic calming. Mr. Corson stated they were looking for poli ce and fire comments regarding Carl Street being connected. He stated with respect to density, it appeared there was too much density packed into the whole site. Mr. Johnson replied to sp read the units apart, would mean less open space, or they would not meet the density to meet the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he understood they had to average at least 3 units per acre. Mr. Smyser stated Mr. Johnson was correct a nd the land use plan stated medium density had to have at least thre e units per acre and no more than six units per acre. Mr. Johnson indicated he thought the City wa nted open space and wetlands as much as possible. Ms. Lane stated she did not believe this area of the City should be medium density. Mr. Smyser replied the City Council made that decision and staff was bound to implement the Council’s decision. Chair Schaps asked if they were required to keep this area medium density. Mr. Smyser replied if they changed the density of the area, they would need to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Schaps asked how long would a Comprehensive Plan amendment take. Mr. Smyser replied conservatively six months. Mr. Lyden stated the question here was is th is development good for the City. He asked what would the Metropolitan C ouncil do if they changed the density. He stated he would agree with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He stated he did not want Carl Street connected unless it was for safety reasons and safety reasons only. He expressed concern about the density of the development. He st ated he would not vote for this development with these densities. He tha nked Mr. Uhde for his efforts, especially with the Airpark. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Uhde stated they would vigorousl y oppose a Comprehensive Plan amendment because of the time and money they had alrea dy spent. He stated this development was born four years ago and did ad dress life style living. He stated it was always his understanding that because of the wetlands, this would be a higher density development. He stated this development was a good devel opment for the City. He stated the swing towards new development was not single-family. He stated multi-family permits had exceeded single-family permits in the State. Mr. Zych stated he would like to see a storm shelter in the area. With respect to Carl Street he believed it still needed to go th rough. He stated he did not agree with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Chair Schaps agreed with the Board regardi ng Carl Street. He stated he believed it needed to go through. He stated he unders tood the resident’s comments, but believed there was a way to do it where the resident ’s property would not be affected. With respect to the Airpark, he agreed with Mr . Hunter’s recommendation on Lot 9 and Lot 4 with respect to a buffer zone. He stated if Lot 4 was an issue, then they should drop the houses and create 3 or 4 more Airpark lots. He noted he was not comfortable with the reclassification of the property from low to medium density, but there were a lot of other variables that went into the approval of the Comprehensive Plan that the Board was not a part of. He stated he did not like the l ooks of the development with respect to the townhomes. He stated there were too many of them. He stated he wanted the multi-units in the middle to be reduced. He stated he would like to see some relaxation of the number of units in the middle. He stated Mr. Lyden’s suggestion of a golf course was a good one. Mr. Lyden stated if it was th e sentiment on this Board that the medium density was not appropriate, could they let the Council know that they had an issue with it. Chair Schaps stated they could let the Council know of th eir concerns, but righ t now they were boxed into medium density and they just needed to make it the best they could make it. Chair Schaps noted Mr. James Bosak, 7798 Sunset Road, had sent a letter dated December 11, 2002 to the Board which stated: “On November 7, a community meeting organized by Century Farm developer Gary U hde was held to convey to the surrounding residents his latest plans for a new housing de velopment. I have made some comments to the board concerning his earlier plans for his deve lopment in a letter sent prior to the first meeting on it in August. I never received any response to those comments or any indication at the subsequent board meeti ngs I attended that they had any impact whatsoever. I nevertheless feel the need, in light of the November 7 meeting, to once again attempt to point out a couple of things that I think it would be important for the board to consider. According to Mr. Uhde, he has changed his plan significantly at the request of city planners to more fully comp ly with the city comprehensive plan. The changes greatly increase the housing density of the proposed density of the proposed development. Also, according to Mr. Uhde almost none of the proposed housing units will have even a partial baseme nt. I realize that in order to have high density housing in an area with a high water table means that basements are probably a practical impossibility. Unfortunately this is also an area (Minnesota) in which a major tornado Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES even occurs virtually every year. In my opinion to build extensive housing in this area without basements is, to put it as diplomatica lly as I can, very unwise. Yes, I know the building code does not require basements and ye s, I know that there are already extensive developments in Lino Lakes and elsewhere th at do not have basements. These are not reasons to continue to make this mistake. At the very least a shelte r capable of protecting all the residents without basements should be bui lt in the development. (This is required in trailer parks.) Mr. Uhde’s suggestion wa s that residents could build a tornado proof room within their housing unit. How many people will opt for this? My guess is very few. I personally experienced the tornadoe s (2) that struck Fridley in 1965. Over 500 homes were destroyed. Because virtually a ll of these homes had basements only 2 lives were lost. If a similar event were to stri ke one of these new, high density, multi-story development with no basements, the loss of life will be much greater than it needed to be. Sometimes there are more important things to consider than a developer’s desire or the dictates of the Metropolitan Council. If this housing cannot be built with at least partial basements or some other shelter for torna do protection, in my opinion, it should not be built at all. At the November 7 meeting se veral of the residents, including myself, requested additional information on items of great concern to us. I requested plans showing the elevation of a proposed storm se wer with respect to the elevation of my driveway and plans detailing proposed tree preservation. Our addresses were recorded and it was promised the information would be se nt to us. Mr. Uhde delivered some plans to my house in person last night (12-10). I a ppreciate his effort, de spite it’s lateness to comply with my request. Unfortunately the plans he provided did not supply the information I requested. The preliminary gr ading plan he supplied shows the contour of the property the way it is now, not the way it will be after the project is completed, and is therefore of little value to me in evaluati ng possible future water drainage problems. A call to Mr. Uhde this morning produced a prom ise that I could see an elevation plan of the development after it’s completion at toni ght’s meeting. Hopefully this will be the case and I will be satisfied with what I see. Hopefully the board and city engineers have had this information for some time and had a ch ange to evaluate it. I also found the plans showing tree preservation to be very deficien t in terms of accuracy and detail. In some cases tree preservation areas are right next to or actually intersect with proposed houses – this can not be. I expected to see some act ual tress (sic) plotted rather than just huge areas shaded in. The lack of any detail makes it look as though these plans are merely going through the motions without a serious intent to preserve any trees at all. Also, seeing a final contour plan would make any tree preservation much more believable. If the property is to be seriously re-contourte d it will be virtually impossible to preserve trees. I hope that the board will give my wr itten comments as much weight as if they were presented orally at the meeting. I ofte n cannot find the time to attend the meetings. I also, like many people, find it difficult to express myself in a public speaking setting. Especially the intimidating setting of th e seven board members up on their ‘thrones’ looking down on the citizens at the podium. (A less authoritative setting would produce a freer exchange of thought, if th at is truly what is desired.) I also think I organize my thoughts much better and more completely in writing. And it should even same some time at the meeting. I would however apprec iate some minimal feedback, if that is possible.” Mr. Hyden stated with respect to Carl St reet he was still unsure about that and he requested information from the police and fire department, as well as some hard data on Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES this. He agreed that right now it appe ared it needed to go through, but given more information, that could change. With respect to the Airpark lots, he agreed with Chair Schaps and Mr. Hunter with respect to the buffer. He stated he went along with Mr. Hunter on all of the issues he brought up. He stated he was surprised at the change of density issue and believed the townhomes were too packed in. He st ated he would like to see lower density there, but he definitely di d not want to compromise the open space, but his job was to follow the Comprehensive Plan and that was part of the Comprehensive Plan and he felt boxed in, but he would follow the Plan. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to table this and continue the public he aring to the January, 2003 meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Set up extra January meeting date for Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing . Mr. Smyser stated there were several Ordi nances coming up and it was necessary to have a Special Meeting on January 22, 2003. Mr. Lyden requested the information be provide d to the Board as soon as possible. Mr. Smyser replied they would receiv e the Zoning Ordinance by Christmas. VII.ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .