09/26/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 This would be.consistent with Equity Estates.. He also felt that the. rural residential area should be enlarged to include the area between the freeway and Centerville Road., Mr. Locke noted that 22 and 5 acre. subdivisions were more frequent in recent years, and it.would be ad- vantageous to,the City to keep the land open for future development. Mr. Short felt that the areas already developing at this point were making a certain demand for,police,street maintenance and so forth; and in order for;the,City to utilize the services most efficiently and least expensively, growth should basically be encouraged where it was already occurring. Mr. Short indicated that one of the reasons why Urban Service Districe 11had been decreased was_that so many single family developments had been allowed at a 1 acre lot size, which was uneconomical to serve with sewer.There were ways for the City to,plan for resubdivision,so,that,sewer could be economically extended; steps could be taken to supervise the location.of houses within a segment of a one -acre lot, or to require four per unit, and then allow the deve- loper to build on one of the four lots. Mr. Short had included a new residential category called urban expansion, which was basically an , area reserved.for planned future sewer expansion. It connected with the, two present urban sewer districts, with the exception of some sub- divisions that were not designed so they could easily be subdivided. Mr. Locke indicated that these.areas where sewer was planned within a reasonable period of time should be identified, so the buyer understood that if he built on 22 acres he would be paying a higher sewer assess- ment. Mr. Gourley felt the Sunset Oaks area should not be written off as being unserviceable, as there had already been some lot splitting; he felt it should be in the urban.expansion area. He also was in favor of some sort of control of developers. Mr. Johnson suggestedla 10 acre minimum lot size in the northeast and northwest corners, and a 5 acre minimum lot size in the south central area. .The soils map was referred to for the south central area, and although there were large areas of wetlands, there were also some high spots with developable soils. Vi Schwankl asked what the rationale was for allowing the 5 acres in the south, but requiring 10 in the north. Mr. Short recommended an overall density of 1 unit per 10 acres, but allowing a 1 acre minimum lot size. This could be done by ownership, and although there would be problems if, for example, there were five property owners in a 40-acre parcel, it would still be feasible. This would preserve the remaining acreage for future development and also minimize the number of people to provide services for. Mr. Heath raised the question of problems with resale, but Mr. McLean indicated there was little activity in that area, and this had never been a problem before. Mr. Johnson asked if the City had controls for that density, as the communities to the south were developed and as the next area north, Lino Lakes would probably be experiencing a great deal of growth in the next few years. Mr: Short indicated that density was a guideline; if an owner had enough acreage for the density to be applicable, for example , 40 acres, and wanted to subdivide, then the density of one unit per 10 acres would allow him to spit* off 4 one -acre lots. Mr. Gourley expressed concern over the possibilty of getting long, narrow Tots. A five minute recess was taken at 10:00 p.m.