05/02/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

May 2, 1979 one of the city administrators or city planners he contacted to come and speak to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Gourley, thought it best to wait until all the new material was reviewed. Mr. Heath made available to the Commission a book published by the Metropolitan Council listing sources of information, in these areas. (Issued in 1978, and only just available). Mr. Heath felt that as & matter of opinion „ we should keep the density of popu- lation per Iand,area as low as: possible andlot square footage as high as is resonable. He also felt that at;any given levellof.imsulation, the smaller home is easier and 8.ess expensive to heat. Corner lots were also discussed as far as size, aesthetics, set -back requirements and the extra taxes suffered, by corner; lot owners. It was suggested that,an easement could be put in so that a corner lot would no longerbe penalized. Mr. Blackbird said that taxes on corner lots had been adjusted in most areas to bring them in line with other lots, but .that .tree removal androad maintenance costs were still higher for; corner lot owners: Much discussion was held on,whether.to go ahead with the sample ordinance amending Ordinance No. 56 and No. 56A. VI Schwankl,moved that the Commission decide on the sample ordinance requirements, but there was no secmnd. Mr. Johnson maintained that a complete, detailed analysis of all the literature and inforamtion received from city planners and city administrators should be made; that information up to this time had.come primarily from developers and the Metropolitan Council only; and that,a comprehensive plan could be developed after reviewing this information, rather than handling it a seciton at a time. He suggested the proposed ordinance questions,and density could be made the number one prioritjes in this analysis, and that he could be ready for a presen- tation to the Planning and Zoning Commission in two weeks on these priority items. Mr. Reinert, Mr. Shearen, and Mr. Heath had voluteered to review the information with him, and he could cintact them for meetings next week. Mr. Johnson indicated that although many of the communities he visited were in the process of dropping their square footage requirements,.he felt that whether Lino Lakes make a similar decision or not, they should first make a firm and comprehensive analysis of the situation. Mr. Gourley indicated that two months had been spent hearing and collecting information on this matter, and that he felt there was sufficient information on which to base a decision for the sampli ordinance; that this was a very limited area (R-1), and that everything presented to the Commissionhad indicated that lot size and square footage requirements should be reduced; and that the Commission had previowsly decided to handle these ma+ters on a section -at -a time basis. It was pointed out that a variance had already been granted to Mr. Rehbein to build on smaller lots and to build smaller homes; and that this variance had in effect changed the ordinance already. Mr. Heath. moved that Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reinert, Mr. Shearen andhimself review the material gathered bit Mr. Johnson and make a presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the next regular meeting. Seconded by Bob Doocy. Motion declared passed with Vi Schwankl voting no, and Ken Gourley abstaining because of his position as chairman,: Roy Stanely presented an application tfor a variance for Random, Inc., to split a one acre lot in Sunset Oaks. All the papers were in order and the fees were paid. The application was found to be within the guidelines already set up by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Heath moved tbat we pass this along with our recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion, and the motion was declared passed.