Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-05-2006Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Holmes, Commissioners E. J. Clyman, Frank Weir, Karl Neset and Sarah Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Melissa Musliner and Kathleen Murdock STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning Manager Barbara Senness, Senior Planner Marie Darling and Office Support Specialist Laurie Lokken 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Weir, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the July 5, 2006 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 21, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Clyman, seconded by Commissioner Neset, to approve the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes as amended with two minor spelling corrections. Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION approved with Commissioner Weir abstaining from vote. B. MINNEAPOLIS GARAGE CONSTRUCTION (2006043) MOTION by Commissioner Clyman, seconded by Commissioner Neset, to approve the request by Minneapolis Garage Construction for a variance to allow construction of a detached garage in a front yard for property located at 2615 Sycamore Lane North. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2006037) Chair Holmes introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to reguide two properties located at 710 Cottonwood Lane North and 800 Cottonwood Lane North from C (Commercial) to LA -1 (Living Area 1). Planning Manager Senness gave an overview of the June 27, 2006 staff report. Chair Holmes opened the public hearing. Chair Holmes introduced Earl Fischer, 18025 County Road 6. Mr. Fischer said that at a previous meeting, the staff had made a recommendation. He said that at recent hearings, an effort was made to assist staff in their attempt to get a more uniform area so that they can deal with Cottonwood Lane as a transition zone. He said they had specified this two meetings ago, where they had outlined quite well as to other areas that were affected in a similar manner. He said that also at one of the other meetings he got concerned that other people were expressing a desire to override his entrance and his payment of taxes. Chair Holmes closed the public hearing. Planning Manager Senness said that when the staff looked at this area, as far as transition between the higher density commercial area to the east and the institutional area to the west, what staff had recommended that the City consider a higher density residential guiding. However, both the Planning Commission and City Council found that was not appropriate for this area and recommended that staff move forward to look at the LA -1 guiding, which was consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Chair Holmes said this is uniform guiding with the rest of the residential guiding on that street. Planning Manager Senness said that is correct. MOTION by Commissioner Weir, seconded by Commissioner Neset, to approve the request by the City of Plymouth for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to reguide two properties located at 710 Cottonwood Lane North and 800 Cottonwood Lane North from C to LA -1. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 3 B. BUJOLD HOBBIES, INC. (2006040) Chair Holmes introduced the request by Bujold Hobbies, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow 4.2 percent accessory retail in the I-2 (General Industrial) zoning district for property located at 2415 Annapolis Lane North. Planning Manager Senness gave an overview of the June 27, 2006 staff report. Commissioner Clyman said the request meets approval of what's allowable in I-2 and asked if the applicant sells any type of fuel or other hazardous material. Planning Manager Senness said they are selling kits but not fuel. Chair Holmes introduced the applicant, Dan Bujold, 80 Huntens Court, Chanhassen. Mr. Bujold said they have a store in Eagan and an internet business. He said they now need to move to a large warehouse, as they would like to have people pick up at the warehouse instead of shipping to them locally. He said that is the primary function. Commissioner Clyman asked if they store any type of fuels. Mr. Bujold said that at this time they are selling all electric products. He said they do not have that type of product in their inventory today. He said they have discussed with the fire department whether they would meet the guidelines if they should get into that type of thing. Chair Holmes opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. MOTION by Commissioner Weir, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the request by Bujold Hobbies, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow 4.2 percent accessory retail in the I-2 zoning district for property located at 2415 Annapolis Lane North. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. HARBOR PLACE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION (2006045) Chair Holmes introduced the request by Harbor Place Homeowners' Association for informal comments on a sketch of a seven -lot subdivision for property located near 7th Avenue and Harbor Lane. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the June 27, 2006 staff report. Commissioner Clyman asked who owns the property right now. Senior Planner Darling said there are two separate property owners that are working together for this development. She said the property owners for the north property are Mr. and Mrs. Thimsen and the south property is owned by the Harbor Place Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 4 Clyman asked about the history of the area. He said the subdivision was a PUD and then the City removed PUDs. He asked that now it has a zoning district, if restrictions on the PUD no longer technically apply. Senior Planner Darling said that the Planned Unit Development was removed but as a subdivision, it still has restrictions on it. She said this was created for open space with an outlot designation on it and that designation still carries weight. Commissioner Anderson asked if they came to the City and asked questions, got advice on how to make their plan work and what concerns they need to address before they came with the actual plan. Senior Planner Darling said yes, they had met separately and jointly with both property owners in the past. She said they have met on two or three occasions with the Homeowners' Association and one time with a developer and an engineer. Commissioner Anderson asked if they were aware of the wetland issue, the tree preservation and everything else. Senior Planner Darling said yes, they know that they have to delineate the wetlands and provide an inventory of trees. Community Development Director Hurlburt said that staff recommended that the applicant go through the sketch plan process because there are policy issues of whether or not the land should be subdivided at all in this case. She said staff had indicated informally that they didn't see circumstances where staff would recommend in favor of development. She said the decision would be made by the City Council with the advice of the Planning Commission. She said that this is a way for them to get that policy question before the City without the cost of a full application. Commissioner Clyman asked that on the plan for the access off of Harbor Lane, where it calls for double and triple frontage lots, if those lots are part of the Homeowners' Association. Senior Planner Darling said that neither one of those lots are part of the Harbor Place Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Clyman asked if the home just north of the outlot would remain in all the plans. Senior Planner Darling said that shows as remaining in all the plans. She said it was a fairly new home, built after 1991 when this property was subdivided. Commissioner Clyman asked if a developer has come in and made an offer to purchase both lots. Senior Planner Darling said the offer was for a portion of the north lot and the outlot. Commissioner Anderson asked that on the property that would have three frontages and on the other lot that would add an additional frontage, how would that impact them. Senior Planner Darling said staff looked at this in a few other cases where there were new multiple frontages. She said that when you create a new frontage, you increase the amount of setback required. She said this would also be similar for any kind of sheds and fences. She said those things would have to be set back further. She said that in the past, the City has restricted access to the new road so that they could have fences right up to the property lines. Commissioner Anderson asked about fees and assessments for the homeowners. Senior Planner Darling said there would be no up front fees or additional taxes for having Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 5 additional frontage. She said in the future if the access weren't restricted from those sites, property owners could be assessed for reconstruction of the road. She said that if the access is restricted, then they wouldn't have to pay. Commissioner Weir asked about the adverse effect on the existing home north of the new street. Senior Planner Darling said that from the zoning perspective, there isn't an impact but the property owner would say it has an adverse effect on them, even if it's not measured in assessments or zoning. Community Development Director Hurlburt said the impact would mainly be on their privacy and potential noise from a new public street where they have none today. Chair Holmes asked if the new street would be an extension of 7th Avenue North and not a private drive. Senior Planner Darling said yes. Commissioner Clyman asked how the Homeowners' Association uses the open space. He asked if there were trails that are maintained by the association. Senior Planner Darling said that there is a paved trail that provides access to the outlot, but the paving does not extend into the open space itself. She said it is a steep, paved trail and once you are inside the open space lot, there are no formal trails. Chair Holmes introduced the applicant, Dan Rust, 435 Glacier Lane North. Mr. Rust said he is representing the Homeowners' Association. He said that when they were approached by the Thimsens regarding the development, they had thought for many years that they did not have an option to develop the outlot. He said there were informed in the early 1990s that there were no restrictions on the development once the PUD had been rescinded. He said they were given options that they could give the land away, but without any street access there is no application for development. He said they were approached by the Thimsens about a year ago about subdividing their lot in conjunction with their outlot and creating a new development. He said they looked at whether it was feasible from an engineering standpoint and secondly, how it would impact the neighbors. He said they had not looked at the impact on the overall comprehensive plan or the overall objective of not developing open space. He added that from an engineering perspective, they acknowledge lots of issues and lots of challenges. He said in response to how it is used now, that it is a gnarled piece of land with lots of nice trees, lots of scrub trees, bushes and brush. He said that some of the neighbors to the west have used it as leaf and lawn clippings dumping ground and that in the past some people have used it for dirt biking, but that is not happening currently. He said right now it is a piece of land that is of no practical use to them and provides no enjoyment for the Homeowners' Association. He said they have taken several votes in the Homeowners' Association and they have voted enmass to approve their effort to do this. He said they have tried to be very sensitive to all the homeowners in the area. He said that for the home that would have three frontages, they were informally told that couple is not opposed to the development. He said in the end, their perspective is that they are requesting to develop the land in a manner that is consistent with current zoning. He said he is confused about the concern for not reducing Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 6 density but on the other hand, you are concerned about developing open land. He said that seems to be in conflict. He said that what they are concerned about is developing the land in such a way that is consistent with the overall neighborhood. He said that from a purely human standpoint, that when the Thimsens approached them with this, initially 1/2 of the members were in favor and %2 weren't in favor. He said that the agreement they have with the developer would allow the Thimsens to do far better than the Homeowners' Association and they are fine with that because helping them is part of their motivation. Commissioner Weir asked to be shown on the map exactly where the Homeowners' Association is. Mr. Rust showed the Homeowners' Association area on the map. Commissioner Weir asked if the homes that are adjacent to the outlot on the west are not part of the Homeowners' Association. Mr. Rust said that was correct. Commissioner Clyman asked how many members are in the association and what percentage voted in favor. Mr. Rust said they have 30 households and the vote was in excess of 80%. He said he thought there were 26 households in favor. Commissioner Clyman asked if the proceeds from the sale will go into their reserve or be dispersed to all the members of the association. Mr. Rust said they will have a nice parry and then the remainder will be evenly dispersed to all the homeowners. Commissioner Anderson asked for Mr. Rust to show on the map where he lives and where the executive board members live. Mr. Rust drew on the map where he and the board members live. Chair Holmes introduced Mark Thimsen, 720 Harbor Lane North. Mr. Thimsen said they have been residents for 23 years, 14 years at this residence. He said their lot is larger than most in the neighborhood. He said the entrance was meant to align with 7th Avenue as preparation for a short street that would serve their lot for access to other undeveloped property both to the north and to the south. He said they chose to locate their home in a position on the lot that would occupy nominally two of the three lots. He said they always planned to sell the third lot in the future. He said because of staggering health expenses, they need to sell the 1/2 acre. He said they met with the City last summer to discuss their plans. He said they found out the empty space to the south belonged to the Homeowners' Association. He said they spoke to them and many in the Homeowners' Association had wanted to appreciate the equity in the land for some time but without access to a street, they had not been able to. He said they contemplated putting a house on the lot or a small street that would serve the neighborhood to the south. He said that after much thought, they realized they wanted to cooperate with the Homeowners' Association. He said that each of the 30 families in the association owns a share of the value of the land. He said this share could fund any number of things for the families. He said they have enjoyed the property to the south for the past 14 years, but it is not their property and the property owners can exercise their property rights and sell their interest. He said they feel that they can influence the way the land is developed by being engaged in the process and by Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 7 encouraging others. He said everyone is interested in preserving the trees. He said they have interviewed builders and discussed their past developments and visited them. He said the drawing showing seven lots was not actually a serious proposal but just showing that zoning and the lot size would fit on the land. He said there would not be seven homes because that would remove the ability to place a home on lot to preserve the trees. He said that until a tree survey is done and a specific plan is developed, it is pointless speculation to argue about whether that development would ruin the wood lot. He said the woods are slowly dying now. He said that the old trees are dying out and the buckthorn is choking new hardwood growth. He said the City rezoned from RSF-1 to RSF-2 a few years ago. He said that everyone lives in a house that when it was built, some other previous owners grumbled about the new construction. He said our neighborhood keeps improving. He said there are 20 new lots going in a 6 -block section along Harbor Lane. He said the redevelopment of the larger lots is both encouraged and mandated by the Met Council to avoid sprawl and the terrible infrastructure problem of more and bigger roads and expensive utilities that would be needed in these outlying areas. He said these new homes do not detract but rather increase the value of their homes. He said that equity in the home will be the largest source of retirement income. He said that current neighbors have expressed an interest in building new homes in the neighborhood. He said that with new families, current families and the 30 families in the Homeowners' Association, they ask the City not to impede the private property rights of the Homeowners' Association members and let them bring forth a plan that meets the City regulations. He said that many neighbors have enjoyed the property as if it were their own, but it's not, it's owned by the Homeowners' Association. He said anyone wishing to preserve the land as it is could offer to buy the land. He said the Homeowners' Association wants to exercise their right to develop their property, which is zoned RSF-2. He said that as long as they are within the regulations, they should be allowed to. Commissioner Clyman asked if they plan to remain in the house. Mr. Thimsen said that yes, it is their dream house and it was built 14 years ago. Chair Holmes introduced Richard Sabaka, 610 Harbor Lane North. Mr. Sabaka said they originally built their house under builder Alan Fazendin. He said that at the time there were six lots just to the west of the outlot and two of them were developed and four were not. He said that in talking with the builder, who purchased the land from the original developer, he had indicated to them that that was indeed dedicated open space and would never be developed. He said that the outlot provides a wonderful wooded buffer to mitigate the sound and view of the freeway. He said they built with that figuring that that outlot would never be developed. He said that there is not very good access into it and so with logic you just didn't ever think there would be a way to get in there. He said they could have built a street in there when it first developed, but there was an intent to have homes that were built fairly close together, in trade for that open space. He said with the Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 8 change in the PUD regulations, there are many homes that are still not in compliance with the typical lot size. He said he was quite surprised to see the development and he has never been talked to by anybody. He said that's inaccurate to say that they have been consulted. He said another issue is the frontage needed for a City street. He said right now it looks like a driveway and it's going to be much wider with the street. He said a number of trees will have to be taken down. He said the homeowner on the corner would have the streets on three sides and lose a portion of woods. He said the street is elevated from his property so when he looks out his window, that street will be more window level than base level. He said that is a negative factor for that homeowner. He said you do want to think a bit broader in terms of Plymouth. He said that if the homeowners associations are going to start looking at developing outlots, we need to preserve green space. He said he saw a coyote in there last week. He said he would be concerned to see this go forward. He asked if Plymouth goes and further develops, is the City going to be assessing outlots with the price of property. He said open space does have value in the neighborhood. He would be concerned that you would have to build at least a 500 -foot long street. He said right now there are a number of lots for sale on Harbor Lane. He said it could be a very expensive street with a lot of trees taken out, which is a buffer from the freeway. He said he would prefer that a home be allowed to be built on the Thimsen lot without a City street to preserve the woods and mitigate the freeway noise and view. Chair Holmes introduced Cameron Hagen, 630 Harbor Lane North. Mr. Hagen said that where he lives, in the proposal they are seeing, they would also be double sided by roads. He said he is objecting to the development for many of the same reasons lready stated and also because there are uses for that property. He said there are some informal trails back there. He said it is enjoyed by the neighborhood as it is and he would like to see it remain that way. He said he was surprised that it has been rezoned or can be rezoned into something other than an outlot as they were also promised when they built their house that this land was set aside and would never be developed. Chair Holmes introduced Erik Ernest, 14425 8th Avenue North. Mr. Ernest said that he is the three -frontage lot owner on the corner. He said for the record that he has never been approached by anyone. He said the first he heard of it was the notice he got in the mail two weeks ago. He said he is concerned mostly with the road that would be behind his house. He said that living on a peninsula of streets would be very undesirable. He said he would consider the safety issue an adverse effect. He said he is concerned about the band of trees between his house and the potential road and how many they would take out. He said the trees provide a lot of privacy and nature. He said if a road were to go in, he would want to put up a privacy fence. He said now he understands he could not do that either, it would have to go further back into the lot. He said the most important thing is the safety of his two small children. He said he considers himself friends of the Thimsens and think they are wonderful and is sympathetic to their situation but definitely is not comfortable with a Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 9 street being behind his house. He wondered how many three -frontage lots there are in Plymouth. He stated that he can't think there could be too many, and he does think that would have a negative impact on his lot. Chair Holmes introduced Jennifer Rubenzer, 6257 Fernbrook Lane North, Maple Grove. Ms. Rubenzer said she is a realtor and represents both parties. She said one of the things to keep in mind is that the Homeowners' Association is just asking for ideas. She said that the sketch put up was not exactly what the builder is wanting to do. She said that Mr. Thimsen would want it scaled back, he would want preservation of trees and nature. She said that one of the previous speakers had spoken about logic and it is logical that anyone who has enjoyed that property but not owned it, would have some concerns about the development of that land. She said that they don't own the land and their concerns have to be put into perspective. She said she hoped that Council would allow movement forward based on the idea that development of the lot is conforming and that it is a thoughtful plan put forward. She said she doesn't see the street as a speedway but as a cul-de-sac. She said she would worry more about the coyotes. She said there have been some negative thoughts expressed and change is a difficult thing. She said that perspective and logic would say that they should be allowed to move forward with the idea that they're going to do something that works for the majority. Chair Holmes introduced Mary Nelson, 615 Harbor Lane North. Ms. Nelson said she lives on the west side of Harbor Lane and doesn't have property adjacent to this outlot. She said that her concern as a resident on Harbor Lane for 35 years is what was once a country lane has become a major thoroughfare, but it is still a dead end. She said there were three lots rezoned for 12 houses, two lots rezoned for five or six houses and Glacier Lane was redirected to Harbor Lane. She said that at the time that Glacier went in and the houses across from her, there was a concern about the emergency access. She said that we are increasing the number of houses on this one access, making it even more difficult for residents to get out. She said that on the 7th Avenue cul-de-sac, a lot of homes have been sold to a person who is turning them into rentals and there are multiple people living in them, which has also greatly increased the traffic coming out of there. She said all of these are nice people and they are acquainted with most of them. She said she would like the Planning Commission to take into consideration the increased traffic and emergency vehicle access. Chair Holmes introduced David Leschak, 14385 4th Avenue North. Mr. Leschak said he is a member of the Homeowners' Association. He said he is in favor of the development of the outlot and that the development would be consistent with other developments in the area. Chair Holmes introduced Sue Beiersdorf, 545 Glacier Lane North. Ms. Beiersdorf said she was the secretary of the Homeowners' Association a year ago when the Thimsens approached the Homeowners' Association with this offer. She said that initially she was very much against it for the same reasons mentioned. She said they have gone through a Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 10 lot of negotiations with fellow Homeowners' Association members and she wants to make it a matter of record that they reached a compromise where the Homeowners' Association Board said the setback for the homes would be 30 feet and that they would be given the asphalt path. She said they are agreeing only with this compromise of having a setback of 30 feet and the ownership of the path. She said if that is not going to be part of the plan, than she will be strongly opposed to the development. Chair Holmes introduced Sara Winter, 455 Glacier Lane North. Ms. Winter said she is in support of the development and doesn't understand how it is different from any of the other developments that are happening on their street. She said she has only lived there five years and is one of the homeowners with the smaller parcels of land. She said the outlot was intended to be beneficial to her and several other people in the neighborhood, but it is not. She said she was surprised that others, who don't have any ownership in the outlot, are using it as this is a grave concern to her because, ultimately, they will be responsible for any damage when they are on the property. She said the Homeowners' Association will be posting no trespassing signs to limit their potential liability. She said there is no safe use of the outlot. She said she is in support of any development that is consistent with the current zoning requirements. She said they are not asking for any exception to the zoning requirements and asked that they be treated no differently than any of the other developments currently going forward. She said that as far as preserving the wetlands and nature, if area is being made smaller, the only place for wildlife to go is to I-494. She said deer have no place to go already. She said it is not a wetland preserve area or a wildlife preserve, it is just a liability. Chair Holmes introduced Ken Carpenter, 16925 40th Avenue North. Mr. Carpenter said he is with REMAX and representing parties that would like to sell the outlot and part of the Thimsens' property. He said he wanted to go on record that they do have a tentative purchase agreement with a developer. He said the developer met with the planning staff about six weeks ago and was very discouraged with the outcome of the meeting. He said they needed the support of homeowners to move this forward. He said that in order to fulfill all the requirements that planning and zoning has, it requires a large investment, with engineering fees estimates of $15,000 to $20,000. He said the developer is very hesitant to move forward with that sort of investment if the property is never going to be available for development. He said the purpose of this meeting is to try to get some clarification if that is a wise investment or not. He said another thing he heard this evening and maybe he misunderstood, is the parry that has the three -frontage lot who made the comment about setbacks and the fence—he thought it was mentioned that a setback wasn't a problem. He said he hoped homeowners are given a fair opportunity to be heard and to be given an honest opinion whether the developer should move forward. He said many have indicated this is a high-quality developeribuilder who has indicated that seven lots are not what he is going for. He said the developer would likely request four lots due to the topography and desire to save large trees. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 11 Senior Planner Darling said staff had talked about the zoning ramifications if such a public street would go in. She said that if access to 7th Avenue is denied for the adjacent property owners, issues, such as, greater setbacks for accessory buildings or even fences would be nullified. She said there was a question about the amount of frontage in order to have a public street go through and there is 50 feet at Harbor Lane. Commissioner Anderson asked about the trees along the proposed street and what would happen to them. Community Development Director Hurlburt said it is unknown without a grading plan, but she would expect that anything that would fall within that 50 feet would be gone. Commissioner Clyman asked to explain the difference between LA -1 and LA -2 guiding and how that affects this development. Senior Planner Darling said the City residential areas are split into four classifications. She said the two that provide the least amount of density are LA -1 and LA -2 land use designation. She said LA -1 is two to three units to the acre and LA -2 is three units to the acre with maximum to six. She said that is based on net area, not gross. She said wetlands are deducted from calculations. She said if the outlot did subdivide, the density would be based on the net acreage, between 12 and 25 units. She said there is some language in the comprehensive plan that would allow the City Council to approve a development that would not meet the minimum density regulations, provided the developer would be able to demonstrate site circumstances. Community Development Director Hurlburt added that there's a couple ways to look at it. She said if you took each lot and looked at each density, you can look at whether each parcel meets the overall density goal. She said in this case, when the outlot was created along with all the lots in the subdivision, it was factored into the overall density. She said that even if the outlot is included as undeveloped, the density at the time met the density goal and still meets the density goal. She said it is not necessary to allow more development in this area to meet that section of the comprehensive plan. She said if you were looking at the outlot as an isolated incident where there's a new piece of property to be subdivided, than we would be talking about the 3 to 6 units per acre and whether it's suitable. She said they need to look at the history as it was part of the original development and it was part of the land area that offset the smaller lots and the higher density of the development as a whole. She said the reason the outlot was created is still relevant. Commissioner Clyman asked if it were to become LA 1 guiding, if that had any influence. Senior Planner Darling said that if the land use designation in the comprehensive plan were changed, then the density would be over the maximum that's allowed for the Harbor Place subdivision. Community Development Director Hurlburt said that this area is surrounded by land that is guided LA -2. She said everything on the east side is LA -2 and everything is LA -1 on the west side. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 12 Commissioner Clyman said it is important to understand how the property is guided and the history of it. He said what he understands to really develop that area, they would have to put more than three lots in there. Community Development Director Hurlburt said that additional density is not demanded by the comprehensive plan; that any development is not demanded by the comprehensive plan to meet the density goals. She said you need to look at suitability of the land and maybe it's not suitable standing on its own. Commissioner Clyman asked if there were to be a development, if there were to be a street put in, how would the street lights be put in. Senior Planner Darling said the Subdivision Ordinance would require one at the intersection of the two streets and the developer would have the option of putting one at the end of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Neset said there was a lot of good commentary for and against the development. He said that if he is understanding correctly, the Planning Commission is charged with primarily the discussion over policy issues and not the number of lots going in. He said the Planning Commission is to talk about whether or not they feel these outlots are to be developed or to be left as open space, which was the original intention. He said he won't be supporting anything that causes open space to go away. He said they have struggled to keep ponds clean and to keep our water clean. He said this is surface area that is not covered by concrete or foundations and that's important to him long term, too. He said it is real clear that he is not going to support things going forward that take away open space in the City. Commissioner Clyman said that he didn't like creating double frontage lots or triple frontage lots. He said he doesn't like putting in those type of lots for the benefit of some landowners at the expense of those who have no interest in the land. He said he would be concerned about construction. He said Harbor Lane is a narrow road and he is concerned about construction vehicles and no sidewalks. He said he would be concerned with street lights, as he doesn't like light pollution. He asked for the difference between private open space and public open space. Community Development Director Hurlburt said that anything not owned by the public, we refer to as private open space. Commissioner Clyman said that he would not be in favor of taking away from public open space. He said that in this particular case, the private open space is not a benefit to the entire neighborhood, it only serves a smaller portion. He said that if we are not limiting changes to golf courses, which are private open space, how do we selectively say no to this. He said this is something we should consider. He said if it is private open space, the landowners carry the liability and the landowners carry the risk about what happens to that property and he is not sure if that is fair. He asked that for any private property, is it fair for the City to make them maintain that risk. He said that 80% of the Homeowners' Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 13 Association stated that they would like to see something happen there, as well as the ownership interest to the north. He said the original intent for the area met the density goal, so more lots won't tip it over or require development. The original intent was to create a portion to the south to be more dense, which is a little out of character with LA -1 across the street and the trade off was to have lower density or that open space to the north. He asked what has changed since then besides the removal of the restriction of the PUD. He said that he doesn't know if adding three or four more lots is going to be a major change to the density. He said he would vote in favor of development because of the liability issue and because the community has expressed an interest in changing that private space. He said he would not be in favor of that and would maintain it as an open space, but the property owners have that right. He said there's a lot of work that needs to be done with City staff to create a development or subdivision that will blend in. Commissioner Weir asked for clarification of the Homeowners' Association vote. Mr. Rust said there are 30 households with 60 total registered voters. Commissioner Weir said he agrees with Commissioner Neset that there is too little open space left in the City and we should guard what there is with a passion. He said when he sees a space like this that is open, we should guard that jealously and therefore, he would not support this either. Commissioner Anderson said she is concerned about the three frontages for the homeowner on the corner, the street light and the overall Harbor Lane construction and fire access. She said we need to maintain consistency and safety for our citizens. She said that she is concerned with the overall wetland portion that we have on this property. She said the seven homes first proposed isn't necessarily what is going to happen. She said that looking back over history, the goal in mind was to have some open space in exchange for smaller lots. She said it was wise to have that open space. She said individuals may not see or receive the immediate benefits of that. She said that as a community, we need to preserve it. She said there is definitely a need for open space and we should guard it. Chair Holmes said he is not as opposed to the development of the open space. He said he does have a concern about rules changing and people getting the advantage of that rule after it's changed and after it has been played out one way. He said he has more concern with the sketch layout primarily around the three -frontage lot. He said that has been one of his guidelines, that to force someone into a three -frontage lot is almost untenable and so based on that alone, he would go back to the developer and the people involved and say they have to figure out a better way to do that. He said the other landowners around that have rights also. Commissioner Clyman asked where the closest park is in this area and how far away it is. Community Development Director Hurlburt said that in terms of the neighborhood parks, Circle Park to the west is the closest. She said that to the north of the park is the major trail into Parkers Lake, which is one of our larger community parks. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 2006 Page 14 MOTION by Commissioner Neset, seconded by Commissioner Weir, to approve informal comments, including those drafted by staff and those made by the Planning Commission on a pre -application sketch for a potential seven lot subdivision for property located near 7 t Avenue and Harbor Lane for the Harbor Place Homeowners' Association. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Holmes, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m.