09/29/1980 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

181 September 29, 1980 visions had been complied with in that a single row of Single Family Homes will be constructed on the North, there are now 24 Quads in a 22.05 acre parcel. The Quads are each separate units, 22x44 - 2 bedroom unit with a tuck under garage. The deeded portion of the lots will be the foundation size of the units, the remaining area will be green area controlled by the Association. The density is 4.4 per acre - the City Ordinance requires 8 units per acre. The Lake access will be controlled by the As- sociation - onlywwalking traffic - no boat launching. There will be tot lots in the development. This area will contain sewer, water, streets, curbs, and gutters. The lots in question have 119 ft. on the side and 186 ft. on the other side. Mr. Black- bird asked which is side and wfnich is frontage. There is approximately 60% of the area left open for green space. Mr. Blackbird pointed out the ponding area and ex- plained the reasons for these areas. Mr. Alan Theimich, representing the Reshanau Home Owner's Association, spoke first. Mr. Theimich wanted to point out that he has a petition signed by 127 residents of Lino Lakes opposed to this development. He said some of the basic information asked for by the residents has not been provided. Such as - water runoff and water table. This information will be provided after the preliminary approval. Mr. Theimich said he did not know of any other community that handles a plat in this fashion - other commun- ities require this information first. Some of the other concerns are 1) density - there is extreme disagreement over proposed density. The home owners have pointed their concerns and provided statistics pointing out that this project would put 300 people in an area smaller than the existing 50 family homes. He said no one had pro- vided what the density should be. 2) water table and lake level - that also has not been answered. He said they had been told this evening that an Evironmental Impact Statement is being put together - it should be completed - it should have been com- pleted before this proposal comes in for preliminary approval - and it has not been; 3) downgrading of property value - talking about quads selling for $50,000.00 adjacent to homes in the 80,000 bracket and higher. Mr. Theimich said they had identified these concerns and asked for some answers and have not received them at the present time. These are only a few of the concerns, they have identified a dozen or more. He added that he had just received additional petition forms with 42 more names. He will provide copies for the Council. Mr. Ben Benson, of E. Shadow Lake Drive, made a point that the addresses on the peti- tions were from the entire area and not just from the immediate area - he said this is not wanted by the residents of the City not just the local residents. He also won- dered if this is a Council of the People or just who they are for. He asked that this plat be put aside and that it should be forgotten and construct single family homes. He said the developer said he had over paid for the land and the only way he could make a profit is to construct quads. Mr. Benson said the people should not have to pay for the developers mistake. Mr.Burdell Smith, E. Shadow Lake Drive, asked the Council to listen to what is being said and by whore, he said he moved here to have the best of both worlds and felt that this City should not compete with the other suburbs to become an over populated area. He pointed out that the Council should represent the people of the entire City of Lino Lakes. They are not against Mr. Rehbein building on this land - just so it goes a- long with what is already there. Mr. Jaworski said the Oath of Office says that the laws of the State of Minnesota must also be upheld - not just the Ordinance Of the City of Lino Lakes. Mr. Julian Hook, Attorney for the Home Owners, asked to speak on the legality of the special use permit as relates to the laws of the State of Minnesota. He questioned the validity of the special use permit and noted that he had seen two legal opinions - one states that the special use permit is void and was concurred by all persons con-