Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/1993 P&Z Minutes• • • P & Z Work Session 10/27/93 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORK SESSION MINUTES ...... ............................... nsultant Co ...... ............................... ....... ............................... ....... ............................... ............... land: .................. .................. Chairman Schaps called the meeting to order at 6:35 and explained that this is a special Planning & Zoning Board Work Session to discuss a proposal from Gary Uhde to develop the Behm Farm and adjoining properties to the west. The Planning & Zoning Board will not be making any recommendations at this meeting. Mr. John Johnson, representing Mr. Uhde, gave a brief presentation and outlined the three options they have identified for the property. The proposal has been reduced from 160 lots to a maximum of 153. Option A would involve 153 lots with sewer extending west and north to Carl Street, minimum wetland filling would be required. Option B would involve 103 lots with sewer serving the Behm Farm lots and construction on the lots west of the Farm as they are currently platted. Major wetland fill would be required and most likely allowed because the lots are individual lots of record (on site septic systems would be required on the westerly lots). Option C would provide for 103 lots, similar to Option B, however, the existing lots would be realigned to provide for a minimum of wetland filling (on site systems for the westerly lots). Mr. Johnson further explained that they would propose five phases of development with Phase one (1) beginning in 1994 on the eastern portion of the Behm's Farm. 1995 would also involve the Behm Farm with 1996 completing the Farm and the first cul de sac west in Phase III. Phase IV would involve the area north of Lilac on Laurie in 1997/98 with completion of Phase V being north of Thomas Street in 1999. Utilities would be extended from Fourth Avenue, easterly on Lilac, north on Laurie and then along Thomas Avenue both east and west. The trunk sewer line would be adequately sized to serve the entire area for future connections. The cost for these services would be paid entirely by the developer. Adjoining properties would not be assessed unless they were interested in participating in the improvement. Street improvements would also be paid by the developer. 1 P & Z Work Session 10/27/93 • The options presented included 7 -10 lots with less than 10,800 square feet of upland. Mr. Schones asked what the developers definition of "up- land" was. Mr. Johnson explained that "up- land" meant that area outside of both the wetland and the ordinary high water mark. Darrell Schneider explained that the RCWD has just completed a study of the flood plain in this area and found that the 100 year flood elevation is 900.5 which, according to Mr. Johnson, corresponds to their estimated edge of the wetlands. • • Mr. Schones asked what it would cost the typical homeowner wishing to connect to sewer in this area. City Engineer Schneider explained that the residents in this area would pay a standard fee based on the average sized lot in the development - for example 75' -80', even if their particular lot was 125' or more or less. That fee would be roughly between $11,000 - $12,000. Mr. Schneider further explained that the City would benefit from the extension of utilities into this area because the developer would pay for the construction but the trunk line would be sized to serve the entire area. Future extensions to the north and south to serve existing properties would be less costly because of this. Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed some general planning objectives for the Planning & Zoning Board to consider in regard to this development. (Specific considerations are outlined in the Planner's report dated October 12, 1993) Generally these considerations included the long range plans for this area. The City's 1987 Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as "expansion residential" and logical for the extension of utilities before the year 2010. This expansion is anticipated to be market driven. In addition, the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows an extension of sewer into this area. Past planning efforts have identified this as an area that will be served by sewer. The P &Z and CC need to determine if previous decisions regarding the area are still valid. If the answer to that question is yes - then the next question is timing. The next item reviewed by Mr. Brixius involved Land Use Compatibility. A portion of the area in question is Zoned Rural with a current 10 acre lot minimum. Many of these lots are platted at 2 1/2 acres. With the developer paying the way, there is an opportunity to get sewer and water utilities extended into this area. The City is aware of septic system failures in the vicinity and this would be an opportunity to bring utilities closer to areas where there is a potential for ground water pollution. The ultimate solution to failing systems may be the extension of public sewer - the City must evaluate how this may be implemented in the future - with or without the proposed development. COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS: Holly Hunt, 7786 Sunset thanked the P & Z for inviting the residents to the work session. She expressed concern about high density housing. With 2 - 6 acre parcels in the area Plan A did not appear to be consistent with the area. They moved to the area to get away from "postage stamp sized lots ". Although she 2 P & Z Work Session 10/27/93 indicated development in the area was inevitable, she asked the City to adopt a policy of quality, not quantity. Tom Mesich asked why she felt development was inevitable - Ms. Hunt stated that she is aware the northern suburbs are expanding. In response to another question by Mr. Mesich she indicated that they have not had any problems with their septic system. A resident asked if Options B and C would bring sewer to the larger lots and Mr. Uhde replied - no it would not - those lots would most likely have mound type septic system. Mr. Uhde added that he did not feel on -site systems were the best alternative and added that in the long run probably not the most cost effective option either. Mr. Jim Balboa of 4th Avenue and Thomas indicated that the original concerns expressed when the proposal was first reviewed still stand. The proposed development is inconsistent with the surrounding area. We live out here for the openness. Another resident asked if there was a formula to determine the cost to connect to sewer and water for the larger lots. Darrell Schneider explained that there was a formula based on the area and footage. However, he further explained that if a property owner was only connecting his existing house and not planning to subdivide that the cost would be between $11,000- $12,000 depending on the average sized lot in the proposed development (this would apply even if the property were a larger piece, at least until such time as they would wish to subdivide further). A resident asked if Carl Street would be part of this plan and expressed concern about development continuing to the north. Mr. Johnson explained that Carl Street was not a part of this proposal. Chairman Schaps further explained that no one could answer at this time whether development would continue to the north. It remains to be seen! Mr. Uhde advised the audience that the approximate cost of a mound septic system is between $7- 8,000, a well between $2- 3,000. On- site systems are not fool proof - they do fail. The cost is about the same for City sewer and water and it will last forever. Therefore, there is a positive side to City utilities. Mr. Mesich pointed out that there is a monthly bill of approximately $30 for City sewer and water. Mr. Landers asked how many people in the audience had failing septic systems. No one responded. However, the comment was made that "who would want to say yes and then have the City force some correction! ?" A resident at 7744 Sunset stated that he had been told the soils in the area were not good for septic systems. Mr. Uhde added that if Options B or C are approved they would be proposing mound systems for that very reason. Tom Mesich asked about the commercial development along Fourth Avenue. Darrell Schneider replied that Accu -Tool, Kosner- Gertz, and the Correctional Facility are all interested in having public 3 I • • • P & Z Work Session 10/27/93 utilities extended to serve their properties. In fact, Kosner- Gertz has already voluntarily paid a water assessment and water is not available yet. There were no additional comments from the public. Chairman Schaps thanks all for attending the work session and again advised them that there would be no decision at this time. If the developer decides to pursue the development there will be a public hearing - most likely in December. Anyone not formally notified was encouraged to advise staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 P.M.