05/08/1972 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

1 1 1 5/8/72 least 10 days previous to the hearing, and read the contents of the notice. Mr. Bohjanen noted that the proposed changes had originated at the P &Z andasked for any remarks in favor or any other changes. William Bucch, Attorney on behalf of U.S.Lakes Development Co., spoke in opposition to the changes as proposed: 1. It would place a burden on the company because they had made their plans using the zoning code. 2. Their models are barely under the presents limits and this puts them into jeopardy. 3. Overall, the square footages proposed are on the high side, and something else could be worked out later to be comparable with other areas. 4. We could adopt this on a midified basis, and that U.S. 'Lakes' models should be grand - fathered under this if it is adopted . 5. The changes run afoul of the State Building Code, which has a binding effect on all minicipalities unless they make a variance request. The 90 aq. ft. minimum area for living areas is set under the Code. 6. "Liveable areas" is not defined clearly, such as whether they include walk -in closets. There was considerable discussion on this. Mr. Locher stated that: 1. He had talked with Richard Hauck of the State today who reiterated his feelings that the square footage per room is an absolute figure, but this has not been put to a test. 2. A combined living room - kitchen, for example, could be 150 sq. ft. but all single livable areas must be at least 90 sq. ft. 3. If more than two persons are sleeping in one room, then 50 sq. ft. must be added to the room. 4. The 90 sq. ft. does not include closets, vestibules, etc. 5. There will be a hearing in June 7th in the State Office Building at 9 A.M. on Rochester's request to delete all minimum living spaces. 6. State feels it has the right to limit minimum square footage; however, if the law becomes abused, it will be attacked by the Legislature. Mr. Busch read a list of municipalities and their minimum requirements; except for three, they either had no minimums or were lower than this proposal. Mrs. Swanson asked if he was getting the tax -base figures at the same time; he said No. Mr. Marier countered by reading a list of minicipalities and their minimum requirements which were higher than the proposal, noting that his list was of minicipalities closer to this area. Clyde Rehbein offered the following comments: 1. Some of the minicipalities listed have allowances for split foyers, garages and other items. 2. He brought copies of his proposal on minimums to the Council and asked them to bend a little on their proposal as he had done in his proposal. 3. Gave an estimate that a 950 sq. ft. rambler with a garage would bring in $I00 more in taxes that 1000 sq. ft. without a garage. 4. Noted that we are asking for poor quality by increasing the square footage by inviting competition from pre -fabs, trailers and modular homes. He would be priced out of the market. 5. Told Mrs. Gould that it would cost more than $5000 to buy an im- proved lot in one of his developments, and that builders are making less percentage -wise per home than before.