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

Home Search

Page 5. Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 Blackbird had referred to Maple Grove, and Mr. Johnson to Cottage Grove. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the quads were $50,000 units and these would be put next to single family homes, worth considerably more than that. He pointed out that in talking with Chuck Windham Associates, the planners for Orrin Thompson, that this would be inconsistent with what they do. Mr. Blackbird said that the density was 4.6 in the Rice Lake Addition lots. Mr. Johnson said that they also had 2 acres minimum buffer zone (green space) between areas, which is not included in the density factors. Mr. Blackbird said that taking their gross acreage they were still at 2.8 for 120 acres. He said that he maximum for Maple Grove was 4 to 5.99 in the Rice Lake Addition. He felt his development was almost identical to the Rice Lake Addition. He pointed out that the minimum distance between the townhouses is 50-70 feet, which is more than the distance between single family homes. The selling price, if con- structed this year, would be $50,000, and if next year, $53,000. The equivalent house price would be $60,000. He felt it would not depreciate the value of the lake homes, as it is a completely seperate environment. He suggested the county assessor as a neutral third party to check with on this. Mr. Johnson brought up some material from Twin City Federal, mentioned at a previous meeting, in that townhouses should sell within $10,000 under the average cost of a house in an area. He felt the single family homes were worth more than $60,000. There was further disagreement on this. Another man from the audience, a resident of the neighborhood for more than 5 years, said his main concern is that when they bought their property, it was with the under- standing of what the zoning was at the time. He felt that changing the zoning at this time, as an afterthought, would be unfair to the residents. Vi Schwankl sug- gested that the builder has the right to take this to court if it is denied, and felt that all the citizens of Lino Lakes should not have to bear the cost for something people in one particular area didn't want. She also brought up that she had moved into an agricultural area, which has developed and is no longer just agricultural. Mr. Gourley felt that the 1934 case was not applicable because it referred to apart- ments (more than one story) and also because the Supreme Court tends to shift and reverse itself through the years. He felt the Court cases he had cited at the last meeting (1976 and 1978) had been more recent than the 1974 court case cited by Mr. Cody; and that the courts were once again reversing their decisions on zoning in that there are specific statutes that require the type of zoning in question. Also, he had information from court cases and from Metro that indicates that any zoning ordinance that goes beyond the health, safety and welfare of the residents then becomes discriminatory. He also felt that there is considerably more information available since the last vote taken on this matter, which goes beyond just the elimi- nation of 3 units. As far as rezoning, he felt the nature of the village has been changing, and would continue to change, thus requiring corresponding changes in zoning as it no longer fit the development of the community. The Comprehensive Plan is in the process of being changed now, and the Minnesota Legislature has specifically required provision for multifamily housing in the community; Metro Council has specific requirements for the number of multifamily units and so on that must be provided for. Mr. Cody said the 1974 decision has not been reversed. Mr. Gourley said he had submitted the material on types of housing and zoning required to the attorney, and they were dated 1976 and/or 1978. Another resident felt he was being discriminated against by Mr. Blackbird--a case of reverse discrimination. He asked for the laws cited by Mr. Gourley; Mr. Gourley enlarged on these. Mr. Benson felt that Lino Lakes should make changes in their ordinance to meet these requirements, but felt this particular situation didn't warrant this type of change as the deve- lopment and land use was directed to single family dwellings. He was in favor of complying, but felt it didn't necessarily have to be in this particular area. Another resident felt it was also a matter of magnitude--it would be a substantial development and there would be a large population influx. Mr. Shearen asked Mr. Blackbird if there had been some kind of buffer planned. Mr. Blackbird said the