07/18/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 4. Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 as Lakes Addition IV. He indicated that the density figures he presented should have been submitted earlier by Suburban, but they had been lost in the shuffle. Also, 29 percent of the area is improved and the figures on this have been submitted, as well as the figures on the blacktop area, which falls into the factor that can- not be improved over a certain percentage. Mr. Blackbird felt the basic Environ- mental Impact Study had not been adverse to the project. The townhouse on the lake side will be taken out due to the ponding area so the maximum number of units would be 35, or more likely 34. The plat itself consists of 26.25 acres. In reference to the motion made by Mr. McLean and passed by the Council, Mr. McLean explained that it meant that all recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Com- mission dealing with changes to be included in the Comprehensive Plan be held until the work on that document is finished. The Council did not interpret this as a moratorium on zoning, only that recommendations related to the Comprehensive Plan be held until the work is finished. The moratorium under those conditions lasts until the end of January when the Comprehensive Plan is forwarded to the Council. One of the residents present felt that the density was a concern with residents, but of even more concern was the fact that it was not just a few townhouses, but a major development which would dominate the nature of the neighborhood and would also be a substantial portion of the entire city. In terms of the effect on the neighbor- hood and environment, a large development such as this would be very different from that of a few townhouses. He also brought up the fact that the developer had not yet met with the homeowners group. The Commission felt this was a matter to be worked out between the two parties, as it has no control over it. Mr. Gourley asked for comments from the Board. He noted that the application was for rezoning only, and that the plat still had to come up for approval, and an environmental impact statement had to be drawn up. This would be provided by the developer. Mr. David Cody, an attorney and resident of Shadow Lake Drive, acting as a private party and not hired by the homeowners group, gave a presentation citing legal prece- dents in regard to zoning. He reviewed a case of the Minnesota Supreme Court (1974), and gave copies of this to the Commission. It was put forth in this case that in order to rezone, it must be proved that there was a mistake in the original zoning ordinance. The other requirement is that there be a substantial change in the char- acter of the neighborhood such that a rezone is necessary; and also that no reason- able use can be made of the property in its current zoned condition. The burden of proof is upon the proponents of the change. He also cited a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which he indicated had been used recently in Minnesota cases. Another resident, Mr. Benson, felt the issue before the Board was a question of rezoning rather than one of density. He felt that Mr. Cody's presentation had offset some of the comments made at the last meeting. He felt the residents' opinion should be taken into consideration by the Board, as they strongly opposed the development. He felt the rezone should be denied because significant changes have not been made in the property to warrant a rezone. He quoted the Comprehensive Plan to the effect that "the most significant pattern for future land use is the built environment." Mr. Heath brought up that the Planning and Zoning Commission has done a lot of vari- ances and rezoning in the past, and apparently other cities do very little of this; the Supreme Court would seem to feel that little rezoning should be done as well. He felt in general the Commission should be more careful than it has been in the past. Mr. Blackbird noted that the Comprehensive Plan needed updating in view of the sewer. Mr. Johnson had some questions for Mr. Blackbird in reference to Cottage Grove, and brought up their R-1 ratings, and densities as related to house sizes. This is done to keep, for example, a 960 house size from being put next to a larger one, to pro- tect land values. Mr. Gourley asked about which area they were talking about; Mr.