Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/1979 P&Z Minutes261 A special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider a proposed ordinance change was called jto order by Ken Gourley, Chairman, at 8:05 p.m. Members present: Jerome Heath, Lawrence Johnson, VI Schwankl, Bod Doocy, and Council liasan John McLean. Vernon Reinert and James Shearen were not present. Minutes from the April 4, 1979 special meeting were laid aside for approval at the May 16th meeting. A samplce ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 56 and Mo. 56A had been prepared by The city attorney and was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission.' Revisions under consideration were' the minimum lot size for the construction of a single family dwelling and served by municipal sewer and water, and the square footage requirements for the construction of single family homes. Mr. Johnson presented for consideration several general ideas on city planning and zoning which he has come across in the course of.his background research on population density. He estimates approximately a month to fully analyze and collate:.his literature and information for presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Johnson has contacted city planners and city adminis- trators from Little Canada; Lakeville, Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, Lake Elmo, Maple Grove and Mendota Heights, as well as officials form Twin City.Federal, Minnesota Federal, and Northwestern Banks. Mr. Johnson particularly stressed the policy of most of these cities in requiring garages with all new housing. It was brought out that although there are often no ordinances against units without garages, there are what are called developer agreements. There was some question as to the possible situation of a private landowner building his own home. Mr. Johnson also indicated that in these cities it was rare to handle plats with variances, and that variances are rarely if ever granted. He also indicated that these cities don't allow residential homes to be built in commercial areas; that whatever the zoning called for was strictly adhered to.. Mr. Heath raised the question of whether zoning as a rule was restricted to a certain use or whether it included any lesser use as well.' Mr. Johnson also brought up the fact that although there are several different methods used, an effective way to handle approval of zoning and subdivisions is to give the builders the ordinances when they come in, and when they want to get together they call in their city planner, city administrator, city engineer and so, on, and start the clock; and that's how these people get paid. They make a deposit when they bring in a plat and the fees come out of that. Mr. Johnson was recommended a book on city planning which he would like to order on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission. VI Schwankl presented information from a publication entitled "Advisory Land Use Standards for Multifamily Dwellings': put out by the Metropelitan Council in St. Paul. She also quoted figures on minimum Jot sizes and square feetage for for single family dwellings from communities such as Apple Valley, Blaine, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Falcon Heights, and St. Loiis Park. Only one of these communities had ordinanees requiring a garage (Blaine); lot sizes ran from 7,200 sq. ft. to 11,000 sq. ft. and requirements on house sizes ran from none (Falcon Heights) to 1,040 sq. ft. Mr. Blaekbird presented some material to the Planning and Zoning Commission, among which was an excerpt of recommendations by the Metropolitan Council to local communities, dated from August, 1977. It was recommended that garages not be required for single family or multifamily housing, and that -minimum house sizes or float' areas not be requited or reevaluated in light of high houslmg costs. Mr. Johnson suggested that if it was thought to be benificial, he could request 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. May 2, 1979 283 Mr. Gourley suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider and investigate handling variances of this type and others of a similar nature. that are within the policies adopted by the Commission with an in -office review consisting of the Council Iiason and a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The two representatives could review them,iand if every- thing was in older, send them on to the Council for final approval. He pointed out that the present system was time-consuming for everyone involved and constituted a long delay in getting approval. This would not include plats. Mr. McLean brought up for consideration changing the ordinance and thereby eliminating the need for variances of this sort. Variance fees were discussed in regard to whether they covered the expenses in handling them. The .initial fee is $140. Mr. McLean said that the City Council had reviewed the fee system about two years ago, butt that analysis of in-house fees was difficult. Current assignments were reviewed and discussed by Ken Gourley. He asked for comments on objectives for the COmprehensive Plan. Mr. Heath suggested that one ohiective hP to retain the uniqueness of Lino Lakes, particularly its wildness, roughness, and rural character. Mr. Heath suggested that people give their input on uniqueness and how to preserve it. Vi Schwankl moved to adjourn the meeting at 10 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion declared passed. The next regular meeting is scheduled for May.16.