Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/1979 P&Z Minutes) rte.. 1.64.1._L t, In regard to the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission for May 16, 1979: 1. If the Commission prefers, I can enlarge on Mr. McLean's report from the Council. 2. There is available Mr. Brian Dobie's update on his subdivision. (If it is wanted as an addition to the minutes). 3. I don't have locations for some of these variances, etc. Should they be added? If so, how do I get these? 4. Apologies for the error in the minutes of the May 2 meeting. --Carol Krasnow recording secretary May 16, 1979 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Ken Gourley at 8:08 p.m. Members present; Jerome Heath, Bob Doocey, Larry Johnson, James Shearen, Vi Schwankl, Vernon Reinert and Council liaison John McLean. Absent: none. Mr. Shearen moved to approve the minutes of the April 18 regular Planning and Zoning meeting. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley brought up a question on the minutes of the May 2 meeting. It was recorded in these minutes that minutes from a prior meeting had been approved; this should be corrected to read that the motion had been made to lay aside all previous minutes for approval at the May 16 regular meeting. Vi Schwankl moved to approve the minutes of the May 2 special meeting with this correction. Mr. Gourley seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of April 4. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Mr. Rehbein's Shenandoah Third Addition; the variance was not approved at that meeting. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Reinert moved to approve the minutes of the April 11 meeting. It was the first meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission held to outline the steps they wanted to go through to revise the comprehensive plan. There was an error on the third page in the third paragraph. Marilyn Anderson indicated that this part that was missing had been added later. James Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Reinert asked for what purpose was Ordinance No. 20 in the material mailed out. Mr. Gourley said that it dealt with rules of governing meetings, and was quite outdated and should be revised. It could perhaps be dealt with at a later meeting. He asked that the clerk be instructed that Mr. Locher review Ordinance No. 20, and make his recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission to deal with at that time. It is not up to date with existing statutes. Mr. McLean gave his report on the April 23 Council meeting, with explanations. Next on the agenda was a feasibility matter for Arena Acres. Vi Schwankl asked to be excused from this matter because her property abuts this property. Mr. Gourley brought up the point that when a member asks to be excused, it should be with the concurrence of the entire commission. The commission concurred. Mr. Herman Talle was present representing Ken Rehbein in this matter; he presented a sketch and asked for comments as to feasibility. Mr. McLean asked for the lot size on this; Mr. Talle said it was one acre. Mr. Gourley indicated that this was a preliminary discussion, and that a fee must be paid before it was sent to the planner. Mr. Talle felt it was all good buildable land, but was not sure any perk tests had been run on it. Mrs. Anderson said she had a sale survey that indicated the open areas were low land, and the rest was good buildable land. Mr. Shearen felt that the cul-de-sacs should perhpas be altered to a looped road. Mr. Brian Dobie was questioned in regard to this matter; he was favorable to the idea of working in cooperation with Mr. Rehbein on the road extension and the cul-de-sac situation. Upon request, he also outlined the topography of the area. The area in question was pointed out on an aerial map. Mr. Gourley said he would like to see the low areas extended into lot lines because the city very Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 often ends up with the responsibility for them because of non-payment of taxes or whatever. Mr. McLean brought up that the city-wide drainage plan should be considered with this. Mr. Gourley said that he would concur with the discussion on the cul-de-sacs and that an extension with adjoining parcels is not an uncommon request, and had been done before; perhaps Mr. Rehbein and Mr. Dobie could come to an agreement on the two parcels. The Planning and Zoning Commission would like to see them hooked up purely from a maintenance standpoint. He said that in reference to lots 30 and 31, the county ditch could not be considered part of the one acre minimum. There was also some discussion on accessibility for lots 1 and 2. The next matter for consideration was a variance for Ray Rehbein, and the reason for the application was the sale of land. In answer to a question on what the commercial use was going to be, Mr. Rehbein indicated it was going to be for a frozen foods operation, and would be a warehouse (drop point). Mr. McLean asked if there was enough room for trucks and so on with one acre. Mr. Gene Mobley said that the building site had been discussed, but that he had not seen the plans; and in this instance, there is a 10 foot set back on each side, so that has to be taken into consideration on the variance. 43,506 was the computed size; 43,500 is an acre. Mr. Gourley said that with the road easement, it was not quite a full acre, and that it should be brought up to a full acre. The building size would be 6,040 feet, so there would be ample toom to swing a trailer; Mr. Mobley would be covering this when the building permits come in. Mr. Reinert moved to approve for recommendation to the Council, subject to the stipulation that it be brought up to a full acre. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next matter was a variance for Allan Robinson for breaking off two lots (lot A at 1.7 acres, and lot C at 1.5 acres) instead of platting them. Mr. McLean asked if the road easement shown was an existing road; Mr. Robinson said that it was Pine Street. The street ends just to the end of his property and is maintained to that point, or within a few feet of that point. There was some question of whether acreage included the road, but the lots were still over one acre. Prece- dents were discussed for this type of variance, and it was felt the two lots could be handled; but the Commission has been asking that they be platted instead of breaking them off one at a time. Mr. Robinson was told that in the future he would have to plat additional lots. Vi Schwankl moved to approve the variance for lots A and C for recommendation to the Council. Mr. Heath seconded the. motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next variance request was for Fran Burque. The variance was for a piece of land that a Mr. Bien wanted to buy immediately, due to low interest mortgage money being committed up through July and no later, etc.; and this would have been done sooner, only Mr. Burque had been in the hospital. Mr. Burque had a preliminary plat which he showed the Commission. Mr. McLean said that this sort of thing had been allowed before. Mr. Gourley said if Mr. Burque intended to submit the preliminary plat tonight and pay the fee, the Commission would be able to send it on to the engineer and planner for their recommendations and then it could be reviewed again at the next meeting and it could be got underway at that time. This type of thing had been done previously, where the first lot had been allowed. Mr. Heath moved to recommend approval to the Council for this variance, subject to the submission of the plat and necessary fees, and at that time it would be forwarded to the engineer and planner for their recommendations; and that this would be on the agenda for the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. McLean will not carry it to the Council unless the necessary fees Page 3 Planntngg and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 are paid. No further variances will be granted. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The Council meeting is May 29. The variance for a long driveway for Mr. and Mrs. Alexejew was next on the agenda, with Mrs. Alexejew appearing. She presented a drawing and pointed out the proposed 800 -foot driveway. There was a perk test for the house location, which was approved. She was told if she boards horses later on, she will need a special permit. The Commission notified her that it will be her responsibility to maintain the drive- way in a condition suitable for emergency vehicles, fire trucks, ambulances, police and so on; it is not the city's responsibility. Mr. Reinhert moved to recommend that the variance be granted for the approximately 800 -foot driveway. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The matter would be on the Council agenda for May 29 for final approval. A variance for William Dian for transfer of a piece of land less than 22 acres was next on the agenda. The developer, Tim Rehbein, was present representing Mr. Dian. A house had been built too close to the lot line in this case, and the city requires that it be 10 feet from the property line. The variance is for transfering a strip of property from the adjoining lot to satisfy this requirement. Mr. Mobley said that he had informed the builder that they were too close to the lot line; instead of using the monuments, they had used the utility lines and that's why they were off. He said they will be tagged in the future if this happens. Mr. McLean brought up the question of whether the adjoining land was going to still be one acre. Mr. Gourley said that an appli- cation for a variance would have to be made for both lots as they would both be less than one acre. Another variance application for the second lot would have to be made and the fee paid. Mr. Shearen moved that approval be recommended to the Council for this variance, and for the second variance, to be forwarded to the Council, based on hardship. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The second application, survey, and fee is needed before the Council meeting on May 29. Tim Rehbein asked to be put on the agenda for the next regular meeting for a matter of feasibility. The variance application for Random, Inc., on the agenda for this meeting, had been handled at the special meeting of the P&Z on May 2. The next matter was a variance for the owner -of -record Howard Cluckey, with Ray Johnson appearing. This was for splitting a lot (lot 1) in the Lexington -Lakeview area. Precendents have already been set for splitting corner lots in that area:, the only requirement asked for in the past has been that the lots be split exactly in half unless an existing building prevents it. This would be going less than one acre, but precedents have already been set in the Lexington -Lakeview area. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend approval of this variance. Mr. Doocey seconded -- the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Plemmons' variance request was the next matter on the agenda. This had been considered previously and was denied (lot 1B) at the last regular meeting because it did not contain the one free acre minimum. Mr. Plemmons presented a new survey that does have one free acre; lot 1B is now 43,602 square feet. There is also the other 150 foot frontages on Baldwin Road by 300 feet deep, making a total of 45,000 square footage. Mr. Plemmons said that the Commission had indi- cated that he didn't need the plat --that he could go ahead with what he had. This was at the April 18 meeting. Mr. Gourley said it was not noted in the minutes. Mr. Gourley asked that the clerk start asking people to plat on anything of 2 lots Page 4 .Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 or more that are contiguous. There has been discussion already on raising the 22 acre limit to 5 acres by meets and bounds, and to require platting on any- thing less than 5 acres. We will be going to a 5 acre minimum and requiring plats. Granting variances on these things then is not going to be done anymore. Lots 1B, 3B, and 4B are all in excess of one acre (lot 2B has already been taken care of). Mr. Shearen made a motion that the Commission recommend to the Council to approve 3 variances on lots 1B, 2B, and 4B for Mr. Plemmons. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This was to be put on the Council agenda for May 29. Mr. Plemmons would not need to appear. The special use permit to keep a horse on 22 acres, for Mr. Dennis Nelson was next on the agenda. Although the minimum is 5 acres, there are precedents for this type of thing. Mr. McLean wanted to know if there was adequate pasture for the horse in any other area; Mr. Nelson indicated that the horse would be hay fed. There was some error in requesting a variance; it should be a special use permit, which would be only for Mr. Nelson and would not be attached to the land, as in the case of a variance. Mr. Nelson presented the petition, which encompassed all the surrounding landowners. There was agreement subject to build- ing a fence from these. Mr. Nelson said that he would fence the property. Mr. Reinert moved to recommend to the Council to grant a special use permit to Mr. Nelson for the purpose of keeping a single horse, with the condition that the permit should have an annual renewal and be valid only for the recipient. In this case, the annual renewal would be in May of each year; they are reviewed annually from the date of their issuance. If there are complaints from the neighbors, the special use permit can be reviewed and revoked. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This would be on the Council agenda for May 29. The next matter on the agenda was the Reshanau Estates preliminary plat, with Mr. Jerry Blackbird present as the representative. This is located on outlot H and parts of outlots K and J, Lakes Addition No. 2, Anoka County. These are quad- riminiums. El Rehbein and Sons is the contractor. Letters from Ralph W. Talbott, Anoka County Sheriff, and from the office of the Superintendant of the Centennial School District No. 12 were read to the Commission. The Engineer's report was read, and the plat map was consulted. Mr. Reinert said there had been a question raised by Mr. Gotwald before on the adequacy of the pump service, which wasn't covered in the letter. Mr. Blackbird said a back-up pump might be needed. Marilyn Anderson read a letter from February of 1979 by Mr. Gotwald. The need for an additional or standby well will have to be considered. The planner's report was read; there was rezoning from single family to multifamily needed. Mr. Blackbird said the situation with the road was taken care of. The proximity of the two units mentioned in the planner's letter could be solved by pivoting these units. The environmental impact study was considered, but when and if the plat is accepted, this will be gone into. Mr. McLean asked about green spaces. Mr. Blackbird indicated that the units themselves generally will be basically of a 2440 split entry type, no taller than a split entry home, so the height would not be three-story. The entries would be raised half level and the area would be landscaped. The townhouse agreement would be the FHA -HUD type form which provides for everything off public roadways including the cutting of the yards on the boulevard of each townhouse. This is a master townhouse agreement for the 36 units; it is contracted --there will be a fee and so on. This can be presented to the Commission. They anticipate starting construction from Black Duck and working east because of the sewer line. The buildings would have the same foundation but varied exteriors. There was discussion about the citizens in Page 5 ,Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 the area and their concern about the quadriminiums as far as population density and clutter, etc. The density was based on 3.8 maximum density. Mr. Reinert said that on the zoning issue, the Council had turned them down on the rezoning, and he felt they should handle that first. Mr. Blackbird said that outlot J is a commercial lot presently. There are several actions, and every- thing should be considered together rather than piecemeal. Mr. Heath asked in what way was this different from the last proposal. Mr. Blackbird said it was the location and number of the units; the last proposal was feasibility only and had the maximum number of units. Density has therefore changed from 6.-- to 5.5 units per acre. This plan also has a pond included. The former proposal was just to see if there were any objections to the area and so on. He said the citizens have also brought up many concerns. Mr. Blackbird mentioned the planner in Maple Grove, who said that Orrin Thompson's project there had the opposite effect on the citizens; that Orrin Thompson takes a mile square and then plats it with a cluster of townhouses and then R-ls and so on. He plats the one mile section into about 4 or 5 different plats. He said people in the townhouses do not want R-ls next to them because there is no control on maintenance of yards. Mr. Blackbird brought up that financing and energy conservation and so on all say we should look at something like this (quads) right now. He also said that this location is the only place that's good because of the sewer and water, and it's isolated from the R-ls. He felt that the increase in population could be handled by public services, as shown by the letters he presented. Mr. Johnson said the subcommittee started looking into density in regard to townhouses and quads, and so on at the time this was proposed. He said he has changed his thinking some- what in regard to these quads; he took the plat and called on Wyndham and Assoc- iates, who do the planning for Orrin Thompson, and some people from New Horizons. He had mentioned the plat initially proposed and they couldn't believe the density factor. All the information is not done yet because the committee is working on something else on a priority basis. Maximum density per Wyndham and Associates is 5 units per acre or 14 buildings and normally they have 2 acres of buffer with trees between townhouses and R-1. Mr. Johnson mentioned that he's said this before. Also, Mr. Lee Tuckner from Twin City Federal had said that a good guideline on quads was that the average cost of a unit in a townhouse should sell for $10,000 under the average cost of a home in that area, otherwise existing property values are depreciated. Mr. Johnson said that this has not been fully researched; this is just what other people have said. He added that he was all for townhouses if tastefully done. Mr. Johnson said Maple Grove had a maximum density of 4.8, and Wyndham and Associates said 5. He mentioned some other people from other cities and they all have ordinances but it hasn't been thoroughly looked at yet. He felt the Commission should look at green areas and so on. Mr. Blackbird expressed his willingness to work with the P&Z on this, and asked that nothing be considered hastily. He said in reference to the Rehbein name, that it does pop up a lot out here, as they own quite a bit of property. Mr. Johnson said that one thing came up in talking to these planners --they wondered that the density factor had ever gotten by the planner or city administrator. He referred to the original density factor as being 8 or 9. Mr. Blackbird said it had been 6.7. Mr. McLean thought it had been about 7.--. Mr. Gourley said on behalf of the planner that he is limited by the ordinances and publications that the Planning and Zoning Commission gives him based on its acts, and that we have no numbers on this. Mr. Reinert said that Mr. Blackbird had indicated that after his initial request was turned down, that he was going to meet with the people affected by this development; had he done that? Mr. Blackbird said that he had not, but he had given copies of his letters to the people here tonight. This area is backing Page 6 ,Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 onto 7 or 8 lots, and that area would be screened. No trees on Lantern Lane are planned. The townhouses are in clusters and not in rows. Mr. McLean asked if they were going to handle the parking question that the planner had brought up. The design is apparently on the sketch plan but it was not put on the one made available to the Commission. The environmental impact study will be done if there is acceptance. There may be another ponding area necessary on the west side in the lake area. Mr. Blackbird did not know if Rice Creek Watershed will require it or not, but Mr. Gotwald believes they will. The existing ponding area is the natural low area. Mr. McLean asked if all road sections are standard city roads; Mr. Blackbird said they were, and the cul-de-sacs are larger than normal. Mr. Shearen suggested that perhaps duplexes could be added as a buffer and thus lower the density of the area. Mr. Blackbird indicated that they would rather keep it a townhouse complex, and that density figures would not be altered much if duplexes were used. There is a 4.1 average household figure used here. Mr. McLean asked if there had been any planning on lighting and so on. Mr. Black- bird said that it hadn't been looked into yet for the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Reinert was concerned with the pumping in regard to the health and safety of the residents and wanted to know what was being planned in regard to this deficiency, which he felt was very serious. Mr. Blackbird said the fire hazard is not that great because it's so close to the lake, and water can be pumped up directly from the lake. Mr. Reinert felt that with that large a development, the problem should be worked out before anything further is done on it. Mr. Blackbird felt that after the land has been bought it would be easier to handle; but Mr. Reinert felt it shouldn't wait until the problem exists, but plans should be made now and the problem worked out. Mr. Gotwald is apparently looking into this matter involving the water system, and taking into consideration what should be done. Mr. Reinert felt this is going to tax it to the maximum already. Mr. Gourley suggested that the Commission should ask Mr. Gotwald for specific information on this. Further discussion was held on the water situation: water storage, wells and the fire protection situation. Mr. Heath brought up a question on population density -- if we set 4.5 or 5 as a density, would that limit the capacity to build? Mr. Blackbird indicated that it was all related to the people per household density question. He felt individual homes and townhouse densities would be the same. He sees single people buying homes, and so on. He felt family size was question- able, and that a large family would not buy this. The 5.-- units per acre plan is based on this one mile; it doesn't mean that there are only 5 units per one single acre. Park area should be included in calculations as well. He said Lakeville is presently considering 140 units in a 20 acre parcel, yet they say their limit is 4.8. Mr. McLean asked about tot lots. Mr. Blackbird said there were some corners ideal for tot lots and there would be one for each cluster unit. It was considered for the lake shore but they were concerned about children falling in the water, and so it was changed. They would not be open to the general public, but it would actually be up to the townhouses to decide, as it was private ownership. There is a park dedication made already. Mr. Johnson brought up a situation with Rice Lake Trails, platted by Orrin Thompson, in which land allo- cations were broken down by single family housing and townhouse lots. He cited some figures on density, and pointed out that they do breakdowns, not by a whole plat, but by the units individually. Mr. Blackbird agreed that this was done in this case. There was some further discussion. Mrs. Anderson had some information on density from the planner. Mr. McLean noted that most of it related to R-1. Mr. Blackbird was asked if he was going to get together with the homeowners group; he indicated that he would. Mr. Reinert felt that the initial plat proposal had been pretty poor, and felt that if it had not been questioned, they would have gone ahead and developed; he hoped Mr. Blackbird would continue to express Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 • willingness to work with the P&Z and the community on these matters in this, as well as in future developments. Mr. Gourley called the Commission's attention in regard to density to a publication that was published by Metro Council in May of 1979, which outlines a study that they conducted on density in accordance with existing zoning ordinances in 81 communities. The bulk of the 81 communities serveyed (452 percent of them) allow density of between 16 and 20 per acre in multifamily housing areas. In answer to a question, Mr. Gourley indicated this was just statistical data on these communities. In reference to density, Mr. Blackbird felt the support facilities are definitely a consideration. Rice Creek and DNA had been asked to have a submission for this meeting (they were not yet available), and all safety factors were contacted with the exception of the fire department; Mr. Blackbird was told that Centerville served the area in answer to his question. Mr. Johnson asked what exactly was Mr. Blackbird looking for from the Commission at this meeting; Mr. Blackbird said this was just a preliminary plat, and that he's requesting acceptance or consideration, and to confirm some facts. He asked it not be denied if it didn't look right, and he didn't expect an immediate decision. Mr. Heath suggested that the Commission talk further on what was wanted for limits (density). Mr. Gourley said there were some points that were discussed already, like water supply, and Mr. Gotwald could address those problems; he suggested the Fire Department be asked to review the density and submit a report on their ability to handle it. This would be Lexington and Centerville. Mr. McLean brought up the point that he was submitting a plat, and was also submitting it with the understanding that there has to be rezoning to R-5 to go with it; so that there were two items to consider here. Mr. Blackbird said the variance would be from commercial to R-5 on outlot J. This appears to be a question of rezoning only (no variance request necessary). It was decided to move this to the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which would give Mr. Blackbird time to handle things such as the rezoning and the meeting with the Homeowners Association, and would also give the Commission time to decide the question of density on multifamily housing. Mr. Johnson felt the comprehensive plan should be worked on first; Mr. Gourley said he thought it was agreed to do this on a peicemeal basis. Mr. Reinert moved that no action be taken on this plat at this time, and that it be brought in again at a future meeting with some of these concerns talked about addressed: The water supply, the planner's recommendations, the engineer's report, and so forth. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. Mr. Gourley asked that the clerk contact the fire services in this area --that they review the plat as presented and advise the Commission as to any problems they may have in servicing that area for fire protection. He also requested that the clerk ask Mr. Gotwald to address himself directly to the water supply problem and make some specific recommend- ations as to how we should proceed in that matter. They should be requested to get that to the Commission by the next regular meeting. All were in favor of the motion. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley requested the entire Commission to look at what's available to them on density. The next item for consideration was the Baldwin Lake Trailer Court expansion, with Mr. Magnusen and Paul Howard appearing. There is an engineer's report and a planner's report, which were read to the Commission. Mr. Gourley directed the attention of the Commission to the minutes of the July 19, 1978 meeting involving the discussion on the Baldwin Lake Trailer Court. Mr. Short's letter suggested a looping street be investigated instead of two cul-de-sacs. The two cul-de-sacs had not been changed, but were increased in diameter. Mr. McLean said the concern Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 was for the servicing of the area by utility vehicles from the city, fire protec- tion, etc. Mr. McLean asked if this was talked over with Mr. Gotwald; they said that they had not, but that it had just been required to enlarge the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Gotwald's letter was consulted, which said that the streets had appeared to be adequate. A permit from the Rice Creek Watershed had been issued. The plat had been submitted to the Department of Natural Resources by Mr. Gotwald in February, but no reply had been received as yet. A copy of both items was given to the Commission. A topographical map and surface drainage map was also given to the Commission. Mr. McLean asked if Mr. Gotwald had addressed himself to the water and sewer situation; he had, and a copy of the sewer plan was given to the Commission. The lines inside the park are private lines, but they all meet city specifications. These were made available to the Commission, but the approval had not been brought. Mr. Gotwald had said it was approved. Mr. McLean asked that they be included in the package. These people will absorb the cost of the sewer line to the lift station, ie., donate it to the city. Mr. Gourley that the park land dedication was not clear; Mr. McLean said that this comes from the Park Board to the P&Z. There was the matter of Ordinance 39, section 40, requir- ing trailers be parked at a 10 degree angle to the street, and a minimum distance of 20 feet between the trailers and the front or street line of the plat. None of the sites met the 10 degree angle requirement, although they were angled somewhat (this was assuming the typical home size). Mr. Gourley asked if there was a reason why they couldn't be parked at this angle of 10 degrees. Apparently if some are parked at this 10 degree angle, they would not be able to maintain the 20 -foot distance between the street; there are others that can be angled, but for conformity were kept straight. Mr. McLean asked if there was a variance procedure in case of hardship; there was none. He also asked if the lot was in excess of 6,000 square feet; it was. The angling situation was further discussed. Mr. Gourley indicated that the plat should be sent on the Park Board to request their recommendations back; the developers should fill out a variance request for the angling of the trailers, and might also renew their request to the DNR. Then action can be taken on this. Item 13 in the planner's report concerning sidewalks was discussed --"A sidewalk not less than 30 inches wide shall be con- structed adjacent to the curb on the lot side thereof." Mr. McLean asked about plans for lighting in the area, and indicated the city was interested in these plans. Mr. Reinert moved that the P&Z recommend approval to the Council on the expansion, subject to the conditions outlined being met: Conditional on the park land dedication, and the variance application being submitted to vary the angles the trailers are set at; conditional on the receipt of the report from the DNR; and conditional that the plans be revised to include sidewalks as per our ordinance. It was also brought up that once it's been approved by local govern- ment, then they have state requirements to satisfy, as well as building permits for facilities. Bob Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next item for consideration was the matter of Gene Blomquist. He was not present. The matter was carried over to the agenda for the next regular meeting. Mr. Brian Dobie presented to the Commission the update on his subdivision. The second item from Mr. Dobie was covered earlier, and that was in regard to the north portion of Wood Duck Trail. Ken Rehbein has talked this over with him and he doesn't see any problems. He's planning to pave in July and if this is extended, what he is thinking of doing is running the subgrade to the north line, then may- be put in some base material there but opt not to construct a paved cul-de-sac at present, but provide the stip through there like he was planning further to . Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 the south and then put in a base material turn -around. He wanted to know if he would have to pave the whole thing and then tear it up later. Mr. Dobie also presented an item concerned with feasibility on lot A. A lot with a 33 -foot right-of-way on the south end of Main Street yeilds 3.5 acres which includes the Wood Duck Trail right-of-way; if the county wanted 75 feet instead of 33 feet, that would leave lot A with 3.1 acres. He was thinking in terms of residential and wanted to know about putting in a duplex or double bungalow. The Aragon is right across the street. He is planning on putting a buffer of trees in there. Mr. Gourley said a duplex or double bungalow is multifamily housing (R-2) and would require rezoning. Mr. Bodie said he prefered residential to a corridor of commercial property. Mr. McLean indicated there was a request from the Council which did not appear on the agenda to review Shenandoah Third Addition in its original form as it was platted back in 1977. Mr. Rehbein's representative had approached the Council on the idea of resubmitting this. It appeared before the P&Z in March, April and May of 1977, and was before the Council and a public hearing was held July it 25, 1977. There was a 90 -day period after the hearing that a final plat had to,2 be made; that never happened, so the matter has co o.p--a-ga'im -They_are asking' for the same layout asked for before with the 11,2square footage lot size; therefore, all planner's recommendations and so on are still valid. It was approved by the Council, but that approval becomes null and void because it expired. The variance to allow the 10,000 square footage lot size is a moot point. The planner's and engineer's reports were read by Mrs. Anderson, and the planner's letters of February 11, 1977 and April 20, 1977 were also read. The Council minutes pertaining to this were also consulted. Mr. Rehbein is not going to pursue the Rice Creek Watershed and DNR items until after the public hearing. Mr. Reinert wanted to know if any planning had been done with the adjacent property. The owner had apparently promised to sell the property and a variance had been granted, but the owner decided not to sell after all. The situation is not resolved as of yet. Mr. Gourley said that everything was in order with the exception of the items mentioned in Mr. Zelinka's motion from the Council minutes. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend approval to the Council of this plat as per the approval of July 25, 1977. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was declared passed. Mr. Reinert felt that in the future items should not be added to the agenda at the last moment (as in this case). The matter of Richard Klenck's special use permit for the parking of vehicles, which had been recommended by the P&Z on January 17, 1979 was considered. There had been a breakdown in communications when it got to the Council; the Council had granted him a special use permit to construct a pole storage building (pole barn). There has been some trouble since then with the Core of Engineers, who had stopped all his work. There was some question on whether the Commission wanted to consider this at this time. Mr. Gotwald had said he could have the information for the next meeting. Mr. Klenck is currently parking trucks without the special use permit. There was a question of proper zoning for this operation. This will be put on the agenda for the next regular meeting. Mr. Johnson was scheduled to present a report at this time on minimum house sizes and lot sizes. Mr. Johnson indicated he had tried to call a meeting of the sub- committee, but was unsuccessful; however, he had copies of a report he had pre- pared to present to the Commission. Population densities were also included in the report. He pointed out that some areas recognize a split level and a split Page 10 Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 entry, as Lino Lakes does, but some do not distinguish between the different house sizes. The telephone numbers of the various people he contacted are on this as well. All the information expected had arrived since the last P&Z meeting and was included here. Mr. Reinert said that based on this, Lino Lakes was somewhat less than or about the same as the average of the communities represented. Vi Schwankl gave information on lot sizes and floor areas for several communities, taken from the Residential Ordinances for Single Family Dwellings that was published by the Metro Council last May. She reviewed the 81 Communities contained in the publication for the Commission. Mr. Heath thought that in areas that don't require floor areas, they must have some other way of regulating that Lino Lakes doesn't have. Mr. Johnson said that only one figure was read for these communities, and there are several different floor size plans and density requirements rated as R-1, R-2 and R-3; different types of houses require different floor areas. Vi Schwankl felt that people no longer want big lots; and that there are a lot of communities in the area that have a lot less square footage than Lino Lakes has. Mr. Johnson presented to the Commission pictures he took in Lakeville. Mr. Glenn Rehbein, from the audience, said he felt it should be looked at from the standpoint of energy and cost of heating and so on, and that people were starting to lower their codes; he felt a big house is no longer necessary, especially in the case of a retired couple. Mr. Johnson said that Lake Elmo had a consulting firm and went to 960 and it was 10,---. The consulting firm had recommended it for the area. Mr. Shearen felt there was not much demand for a smaller house. Mr. Reinert mentioned that Mr. Rehbein was the only builder that had requested a smaller home size, but if there was a great demand, this would have been a more frequent request. Mr. Rehbein said that Lino Lakes was not the only community confronting this issue. It was also brought up that if the ordinance was changed, not everyone would build the smallest requirement; most people build as big a home as they can. Mr. Shearen felt that a lower requrement would not result in an influx of people wanting to build smaller homes. A member of the audience felt that not lowering the requirements would discriminate against retired couples and people who wanted to build a smaller home. Mr. Rehbein mentioned a survey that showed people were moving to smaller homes and smaller yards. There was some further discussion on this. Mr. Brian Dobie asked what the objective was in minimum square footage. Mr. Gourley felt there should be a smaller house available for the young person just getting started and for retired couples who wanted to scale down their housing needs. Mr. Johnson said that the ordinances were to insure that, for example, a $75,000 house is not built right next to a $40,000 house --you can't mix property values without lower- ing somebody's property value. High, medium and low density was also a factor. He added that there was a smaller property value ina lower house size. Mr. Dobie felt this was not necessarily so, as long as quality was maintained. Mr. Rehbein reminded the Commission that 34 out of 81 communities have no minimum. Mr. Johnson pointed out that when there is no house size minumum, it's usually got a lot size that's so big that you wouldn't want to put a smaller house on it. Mr. Heath said he didn't want a situation where a developer builds a lot of very small houses as a development. Mr. Shearen felt that an influx of small homes just does not seem to occur. Mr. Johnson brought up the situation where you can have a smaller floor size but you must have a finished downstairs, because they are thinking of total libing area. Mr. Heath said perhaps this should be based on total living space then. Mr. Rehbein suggested having a requirement for a percentage of small- er homes in an area, which would prevent a development of smaller homes. W. Shearen asked about the situation with an individual lot owner, and how this would work with a percentage --it would be unenforceable. Mr. Johnson moved that upon acceptance of this study by the subcommittee that we adopt the guidelines in conjunction with proposed changes to amend Ordinance No. 59A in accordance with the following: one-story homes and 12 -story, lowered to 960 from 1000; split foyer, no change; split entry from 1000 to 960; and 2 -story, no change. Page 11 Planning and Zoning Commission, May 16, 1979 Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. Mr. Gourley had some information to present from New Homes magazine (January 1, 1978, volume 6), which gave the background on the Metro Council advisory committee to study single family housing, which put out the study the Commission had been refering to, the standard for single family housing, which was adopted and published in August of 1977. The article indicated that the purpose of zoning regulations is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents; if you go beyond that, it may exclude people from owning housing in a community. The Metro Council is encouraging that cities go to lower minimum house requirements for single family dwellings. Mr. Gourley quoted another article from New Homes magazine (May 1979) entitled "Type -Casting Housing According to Energy Costs: A Metro Council Update." In brief, in light of rising energy cost, smaller homes were warranted; the detached house uses more energy than the multifamily housing. Another article dealt with the 1979 housing outlook in respect to senior citizens, and recommended a smaller house be an available alternative for retired persons. Mr. Gourley cited another article in Real Estate Today (February 1979), entitled "New Homes Not Beyond Reach," which pointed out median sale prices on houses were increasing, and smaller homes are needed to accomodate people of moderate income. Mr. Gourley felt the Commission should go to even lower requirements --less than 960. He felt the need was there for the retired person and the person of moderate income; it would be discriminatory to require a larger home than they can afford. There was some discussion as to whether Lakeville was comparable to Lino Lakes. Mr. Gourley presented material and statistics from a zoning ordinance book put out by the Metro Council, which contained a combination of statistics on existing zoning ordinances that are in effect now. Mr. Gourley presented the idea that the Commission should recommend 864 on a split entry, based on the report and stat- istics from the Metro Council, and also based on the fact that the requirement for a 2 -story house is already at 850, and there is little difference between a 2 -story and a split entry. Mr. Johnson brought up the low, medium and high density factors in connection with the Metro Council statistics. Mr. Gourley said that the Commission has not been dealing with density in this area. Mr. Rehbein said that you can't relate square footage to density; it has to do with lot size. Mr. Heath felt that the square footage should be lowered, but felt that Lino Lakes shouldn't try to be the lowest square footage in the Metro area. There was some feeling that this was not the case. There was some further discussion, and the vote was taken on Mr. Johnson's motion. Opposed were Vi Schwankl and Mr. Gourley. The motion was declared passed. Mr. Shearen moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:15 a.m. Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was declared passed.