Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-83 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 24, 1983 Chairman Michels called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ( Commissioners Present: Dreher, Lyall, Nazarian, Peterson, Lundquist,k'' and Moe (7:42 p.m,) Absent: Gifford. 1. MINUTES - JANUARY 10, 1983 - M/S/P Dreher/Lyall to accept the minutes of January 10, 1983. Carried 7-0, 2, ELECT OFFICERS: Chairman Michels opened the floor for nominations: Chairman - Michels nominated Nancy Prince for Chairman. There being no further nominations, Nazarian moved to close the nominations. Nancy Prince was unanimously elected Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1983. Vice Chairman - Michels nominated Fred Nazarian for Vice Chairman. There being no further nominations Dreher moved the nominations be closed. Fred Nazarian was unanimously elected Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1983. Secretary - Nazarian nominated Bob Dreher for Secretary. There being no further nominations Michels moved the nominations be closed. Bob Dreher was unanimously elected Secretary of the Planning Commission for 1983. Chairman Prince presided over the remainder of the meeting. 34 SET MEETINGS TO CONSIDER AG PRESERVES & REGULAR BUSINESS: A. Ag Preserves -Public Information Meeting - January 27 - Whittaker informed the Commission that the Council, in conjunction with the Met Council, will hold a public information meeting on Ag Preserves, January 27, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. The Commission will have to hold a public hearing on February 22 so that the Council can certify by Resolution all eligible property by March 7, Because of -the re`auired,notification for publication on the hearing, the Planning Commission meetings for February will be held February 7 and February 22, The Commission agreed to set the public hearing for Ag Preserves at the February 7, 1983, meeting. NOTE: Planning Commission Meeting Dates - Changed from February 14 and 28 to February 7 and February 22, 1983, 4, SECTION 32 PLANNING - CONCEPT PLAN PRESENTATION - JANUARY 26 - A. Property Owners, Council members, and interested residents will hold a joint meeting January 26, 1983, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. A site plan, zoning information and the EAW- Worksheet,on the,Energy Plant were sent to the PZC. The meeting is to discuss the property owners reactions to the site plan and the EAW Worksheet. B. The Met Council will hold an informational meeting on the Energy_Plant EAW Worksheet at Tartan High School, February 10, 1983, at 7 p.m, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 24, 1983 -2- 8. COUNCIL REPORT: Whittaker informed the Commission of the Council's action on the Annett House Moving Permit. Mr. Annett's request was approved contingent on entering a Development Agreement which included the requirements -recommended by the Planning Commission. Final action will be taken -at the February 1, Council meeting. 7 COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS: Whittaker referred the Commission to the January 13, 1983, letter from the Met Council. All the items discussed earlier about the Comp Plan are summarized in the letter. The City has nine months to adopt the plan. Whittaker suggested this be the time -line that should be considered for making any amendments - such as, reviewing the number of 1 1/2 acre lots, I-94 planning, solar access, lot sizes, etc. --Michels - what can the Commission do to better inform itself about the pros and cons of 1 acre lots. Basis of the 1 1/2 acre was to insure there was adequate area for alternate drainfield.1 6 --Whittaker - WPC-40, State Law Document governing on -site sewage systems, that says 1/2 acre is adequate for on -site systems. Individual who wrote this lives in Lake Elmo - can invite him in to discuss the question. Also, Lyle Doerr, Washington County, worked on State regulations concerning area requirements for on -site sytems for many years. The Commission requested that the Administrator invitel.Mr. Doerr and Mr. Hansel in to discuss lot size for on -site septic systems. 5. MINNESOTA MANFACTURED HOUSING ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION: Joan Archer, Executive Director of Mn. Manfactured Housing Assoc., and Chuck Mosse±in, Senior Vice President, representing members of the Manfactured Housing Association,were present to explain the past, present and future of the manfactured housing industry. Ms. Archer - industry presently provides 30% of the housing stock in the United States - estimates for 1990 indicate this figure will be about 50%. In 1976 were recognized- by a national HUD Code, since that time this product meets or exceeds this code and in some instances exceed the UBC Standards that are used to regulate site -built homes in Minnesota. Provided the Commission a folder of information about the industry. After a slide presentation, further -.discussed 1982 legislation that requires__ certain changes in local ordinances concerning manfactured housing. The slidesexplainedwhat manfactured-housing i5, how°it is. constructed, and showed several -different designs and settings. --Comments on previous Commission discussion concerning Manfactured/ Mobile Home Park Ordinance and a Manfactured Housing District-R-3: --.Referred the Commission to the Attorney Generals opinion on i� setting up a special district for Manfactured Housing and restricting all MH to such a district - Unconstitutional to set up a special district - Communities can adopt other non-discriminatory regulations to protect the quality, standard and character of neighborhoods - Have to allow MH in any district where a site built single family detached home is allowed. - Manfactured housing wall_f-ave to -meet all -=local requirements dor setback, }eight, erc. The complete.opinion was included in the information folder. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 24, 1983 -3- 5. MANFACTURED HOUSING - CONTINUED: Joan Archer - --Referred the Commission, to a second information sheet titled "Amending Your zoning Ordinance To Bring it Into Conformance". Ms. Archer reviewed and explained the individual sections. Commission Comments and Questions - --Lyall - believe in affordable housing - noticed in the slides and the discussion used the term Manfactured Housing, but every slide and what has been talked about relates to what would be called the "mobile home". Did not see anything that related to what (Lyall) considered a manfactured home, which would be a modular home, built in sections, brought to a site, and assembled. Each slide, except 1 or 2, showed the homes in warm climates, most had paneled walls, no dry wall, and tiled ceilings. Seems width is also a hang-up, because of transporting the unit. Width could have a bearing on the roof_ pitch - 3/12 indicated. This could be a problem if the roof is not constructed heavy enough`. to support the snow load - problem with a flat roof and a low pitch. Also a problem with inadequate insulation causing water to back up under the shingles and freezing - when roof is low pitched. This is reduced with a steeper pitch - Considerations that have to be given in this climate. Do you represent that part of the industry that makes modular homes or just what has been considered in the past, as a mobile home that comes in one or two sections and is put together. --Chuck Mossefin- represent what is traditionally called a mobile home. Have nothing to do with Wausau or Sussel type homes. --Lyall - considers Wausau a manfactured home. In broad sense of the term "manfactured" should and would take in a modular home. --Joan Archer - were given the definition and term manfactured home. In slide show talked about two types of manfactured homes - modular, that meet the UBC standards, such as Wausau, Western, etc. and also those that meet the HUD code - this is the type the Minnesota Manfactured Housing Association represent. HUD standards are set up to meet weather restrictions according to climate and area. These homes are designed for the Minnesota climate in the HUD Code. Not aware of another organization that represents the modular home industry. --Chuck Mossefin- today the industry can produce houses up to 1800 sq. ft. with 2'x 6' ft. walls, with dry wall interiors. Technology is there - have the capability to produce a product that is comparable and °compatible .with any other home in a neighborhood for in -fill or private property placement. Minnesota is far behind in providing low cost housing needs - only 5% of the housing starts are manfactured housing or mobile homes. Believe image is responsible for this low percentage. - -Lyall - traveled extensively throught the states - best homes built are built in Minnesota - many poor quality homes found in the south and the west. --Chuck Mossefin- about 80% of the MH homes sold in Minnesota are produced in Wisconsin or Minnesota - are built to good quality construction. - -Lundquist - Washington County adopted a minimum house width of 20 ft., in order to comply iwth the State requirement - opinion on this requirement - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 24, 1983 -4- 5, MANFACTURED HOUSING - CONTINUED: --Chuck Mossefin- up to each County to decide how they want to approach the new legislation. Leseur County has large Ag district and permit single wide manfactured homes out in the country and on farms. Believe these units have as much validity as a double wide (20') unit, because of cost -double wides cost $5,000 - to $15,000 more. If talking R-1 zone infilling, may want to require a double wide. What is the difference between a 14'. UBC site built is a 14' manfactured home. - -Lyall - why is the cost difference so great - except for joining the two halves on a square foot basis. Rather than go 16' x 80' - cut the length in half and double the width - come in with the same number of square feet - where is the cost - transportation or joining the two halves. --Chuck Mossefin- joining the halves will be more costly, transportation costs will be increased, more finishing work involved. On the average will run more. Not saying cannot require 20' width. --Moe - getting away from low cost housing when considering the larger units - getting back to stick built costs - no sense to purchase a 26' x 80' manfactured house for $60,000-$65,000 and put it on a $30,000 lot - would buy an existing $90,000 home. --Whittaker - what is considered a permanent foundation - is this just a frost footing - wouldn't the UBC require a frost footing on a slab house. --Joan Archer - UBC does not necessarily require a frost footing - can have a floating slab. No great advantage to having a frost footing as far as the construction of the units. - -Chuck Mossefin- whatever is required has to be mandatory for all types of housing. There was further discussion on State regulations on foundations, footings, etc, --Whittaker - will have to review the current City Ordinance concerning moving buildings into the City - this would apply to manfactured housing. Presently do not provide for moving manfactured housing onto single family lots. Could legally meet the State statute by requiring structures to be 20' wide - could also have a district that would permit homes that are less than 20' wide in addition to mobile home parks. Could add a clause to R-1 districts requiring.a 20' width minimun for homes. --Joan Archer - may want different standards, such as width, sq. footage, for R-1 and have lesser standards or no standards in other residential districts. --Lyall - will have changing neighborhoods as years go on. If get out of conformity there can cause future problems. --Joan Archer - no different than the concept that in R-1 permit single family detached dwelling units and zone property for this - but in rural areas, plannedforthis use for 5-10 years, may want to have less restrictions on width for the interim period - this a suggestion for a transition period for a rural area. - -Lyall - if a 32' x 40' home fits better aethestically into a neighborhood than an 16' x 80' why not consider this., Should look at the whole picture. --Whittaker - another consideration - if set up an area for manfactured housing of any width on the required 1 1/2A lot will anyone )uy the lot - is it affordable - lots from $15,000 - $23,000 with no water or sewer. Developers of subdivisions north and•west of Cimarron did not feel manfactured housing on lots in this price range could offer affordable housing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 24, 1983 -5- 5. MANFACTURED ROUSING - CONTINUED: --Mr. Mossefin- feels this still within the affordability range based on what residents are paying for rent within mobile home parks. --Whittaker - smaller lots not feasible without sewer. Section 32 is the only available sewered area. Still not solving the problem if an area is provided but no one can afford to use it. --Prince - possible' permitted areas - farm, park, R-1 zone with restrictions, create an R-3, non -restricted area. --Whittaker - basically, in the neighborhoods where the most concern is about someone throwing up a trailer are either developed or there are covenants that prohibit this type of structure. Little risk of an 8' x 80' trailer being placed in an existing neighborhood. Way to handle additional concern would be to regulate the width. City does not control aesthetics - do not feel this will create a sudden influx of manfactured housing to Foxfi're , Demontreville Highlands, or Tri-Lakes area --Lundquist - requested suggestions on how to answer residents who are worried that an 8' wide trailer might be permitted to be placed on the vacant lot next to their home. --Joan Archer - Type of areas to consider now are infilling type areas, where lot prices are reasonable and a person can afford a lot and a manfactured home. Present values of a neighborhood dictate future development - price of the lot will dictate the price of the home,- will not find a 14' x 70' home on a high priced lot. No difference between a small stick built home and a comparable manfactured home. --Michels - concerned with the roof pitch_- why should Cities be concerned about the transporting problems - looks like using one thing to accomodate something else. --Whittaker - noted that Hastings is proposing to regulate the exterior material - this prohibits a certain type of metal siding. --Joan Archer - roof pitch - is a steeper pitch is required such as a 4/12, this excludes manfactured homes from being transported. --Chuck Mossefin- if concerned that want a pitched roof on all housing - require that all roofs will have a certain pitch with asbestos shingles. Location of homes Outside Manfactured Housing Parks - --Prince - want to keep present Mobile Home Ordinance - asked for restrictions on pre-1976 HUD homes - --Whittaker - presently no restrictions in the Ordinance - the proposed ordinance would have defined MH as everything that met the HUD Code. Believe none of the homes in Cimarron meet the 1976 Code. --Chuck Mossefin- law that was passed says MH has to be treated like residential houses - this applies only to MH built after 1976. Could permit pre-1976 homes in parks and would not be discriminating against them. Houses that do not meet the HUD Code are restricted to MI! Parks. --Whittaker - positive way to state it is to say 'if it meets the HUD Standard it can be put any place else outside a MH Park.' Still have to define manfactured houses. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 24, 1983 -6- 5. MANFACTURED HOUSING - CONTINUED: Location of Homes Outside Manfabtured Housing Parks - --Michels - would aq±ee to permit MH in any zone, but regulate it by width. Uncertain at what width is reasonable - Dreher previously suggest a 24'',-width. 'Agrees with the suggested Manfactured Housing District - but do not believe this will create affordable housing, this is based on the comments of the developers of Midland and Tartan Meadows. This possibly could be accomplished in Section 32 or 33 if there is adequate sewer capacity. - -Lyall - can see using MH used for infilling- in consideration of adjacent property values it would be more aesthetically pleasing to require 20' or wider home rather than allow a 10' unit between two houses that are 24' wide - residents would be up -in -arms. Whether PZC has an obligation to protect the community is a personal opinion, but believes aesthetics are important. - -Whittaker - clarified minimum square footage requirement. - have a 940 sq. ft. minimum in existing neighborhoods. --Moe - personally does not favor any width requirement - are no 20' wide homes - by setting size requirements are dictating to another individual what someone elses ideas are on what a home should be. Consequently, if :an individual does not conform, he is elimated from securing low cost housing. Getting away from the intent 'low cost housing'. Are established widths - most of Cimarron is 14' - have not seen one less than 14' - lives in Cimarron and has a 14' x 80' have quite a bit of room and would conform and comply with the 940 sq. ft. minimum. Again, opposes setting minimums - if it fits the Building Code and meets the HUD Code and UBC Standards there is no reason to regulate width. If want low cost housing, then have to keep this in mind. By setting restrictions on height, width, length are saying don't want MH - this is what Washington County has said and any other county that adopted a 20' width. MH District - nothing wrong with Section 32.,-not sure -what isgoingto happen in Sec. 32 - .. everythitg is tied into coet; u - - --Lundquist - could handle a MH District by distinguishing between R-1 and R-2 - would not have to set up a special district - MH would be permitted in R-2. --Whittaker - if have a rural and urban district that permits any HUD home, then providing an opportunity for affordable housing, If restrict from R-1, this does not mean an area is not provided, just means MH are not permitted in R-1. Question is how to meet the need and cause as few problems as possible. --Moe - people are going to buy where they can afford to buy. --Lyall - asked for a_.cost differential between a 12' x 80' vs a 24' x 40'- both have 940 sq, ft. --Jim Bever Cimarron Sales - do not make a 12' unit-14' minimum. 16' x 80' is $48,400 - 16' x 64' is $27,000 - 14' x 68 is $18,000 Multi -section units range from $22,000 to $40,000 - explained the extras that increase the costs for double wides - these can range from $4,000-$10,000. A foundation is not necessary under a double wide - explained how these are set up. Each home has to be set up to manfacturers and State standards. Foundation for a single width home would cost more than for a double wide. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 24, 1983 -7- 5. MANFACTURED HOUSING - CONTINUED: --Michels - some advantanges to requiring double widths such as less cost for the foundation, heating and painting. Keep looking at affordable housing and saying we can't impose restrictions, yet, think there are benefits to having those restrictions - have to be positive about pointing these out. --Jim Beaver - aware of the concern for R-1 districts where affordable and compatible housing is desired. - one way other communities have handled is to permit the smaller single wide home, 14' x 70' for $15,000-$18,000, in.ag area or on larger parcels - these can still be aesthetically pleasing - and set up width requirement for the R-1 districts and for the other districts permit manfactured homes, built to the HUD code and considered a single family dwelling. --Michels - problem is that`in the changing environment we are in, can build in one area one day, then the surrounding area develops with more expensive homes, leaving the 'affordable home' stuck in the middle of -a high priced development with higher taxes,and less affordable living. These are some of the reasons -would rather see MH allowed in a certain area. --Dreher - no opposition to MH, but do not feel the long narrow structures fit in aesthetically with conventional existing homes. Set up a width requirement in R-1 and create another district without this requirement. --Whittaker - if didnotchange RR, Ag, R-2, R-3 and R-4, MH would be permitted any place but in R-1 districts. --Moe - where could an individual purchase a lot and move in a rriai factur--ed home.- Are we going to 'say he --will he?,, e to- buy oneahere he'can db thisrior are we' -going to Say, no nothing is available in -this area, but in_thnzyears, when we get around to it, you can move in. --Whittaker - in terms of land area, have more RR - if did what (Moe) proposed could put anywhere in the City, but in R-1. Problem is that would have to purchase a 10A lot in RR. Have a zone R-2 that permits a single or double family home, but no one has chosen to zone any property this way. Cost of a 10A lot is compariablP to an 1 1/2 A lot. --Mae - If wanted to move his 16' x 40' HUD approved home onto a lot he purchased in town, could this be done. --Whittaker - nb, because it is in a R-1 district. This is not to say there are not lots available to do this in Lake Elmo. Problem again, no one wants to plat property this way. --Moe-- if an area like Midland Meadows or Tartan Meadows were zoned for MH, developers may be surprised how desirable and saleable their property is. Increasing lot rents in parks is making an $18,000 lot reaiia,tie and affordable. When start zoning by width, height, lenth, etc, and enact regulations then it becomes u.naffor.dable. ---Whittaker - do hot think lot sizes will go below-an-acreoutside of sewered areas. - --Moe - would support -a one acre minimum.- --Peterson - favors a width requirement for R-1 zoning. Believes Section 32 would be an ideal location, with the possibility of sewer and higher density, for a MH district. --Moe - why the big push for sewer and water. Nct.convinced lots would be cheaper with sewer and water - an acre lot with well and septic would probably cost less than a smaller.seweated lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 24, 1983 -8- 5. MANFACTURED HOUSING - CONTINUED: --Whittaker - biggest problem is City does not sewer in Sec. 32 - possibility by 1985 and also City not going to go less than an acre lot because of the effect of on -site systems. Question is how do we make thin4s more affordable. --Lundquist - vote for width restriction for at least one class R-1 or R-2 and leave all the rest - possibly rezone some R-1 land to R-2 or something else to make it permissible. --Whittaker - draft ordinance would include: 1. Width restriction in R-1 2. Permitted areas, within R-1, rezoned to permit MH. 3. A MH Park District - need to continue this because the City has a MH Park which needs to be regulated and in order to protect the residents in the MH park. 4. Permitted areas for MH would include all zoning areas except R-1, as restricted and/or rezoned 5. Amending the language, per the State Statute Opinion Poll on reducing the minimum lot size to 1A, provided sewer can be treated adequately on this size lot, it is above the flood plain, two drainfield sites. --Lyall - would want to consider, but wants to know how individuals with .8, .4, or .6 of an acre who want a variance will be handled. --Michels - favors the lA minimun, with provisions --Moe - favors the lA minimun, provided it meets all the requirements. --Lundquist - no opinion yet - what type of an acre will it be,.- lakeshore different. Different districts can have different requirements. All the Commissioners agreed that the minimum lot size should be further discussed. Whittaker will draft an ordinance on Manfactured Housing for the next meeting. 6. MANFACTURED HOUSING PARK ORDINANCE: Next Meeting. ADJOURN: 10:30 p.m. - CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1983 7:30 P.M. -Meeting convenes 1. Minutes, January 10 meeting 2. Elect offices 3. Set meetings to consider AG Preserves & regular business A. Public Information meeting- Jan. 27-- 7:00 p.m. B. Feb. 7- Set public hearing on rezonings to AG and new Zoning Map C. Feb. 21 - Hearings on AG Zoning for AG Preserves and new Zoning Map 4. Section 32 planning --Concept Plan presentation - Jan. 26 8:00 P.M.-5. Minnesota Manufactured Housing Assoc. presentation on the "State of the Art"/Questions on Ordinance provisions A. Slide show B. Location of homes outside Manuf. Housing Parks C. A Manuf. Housing District D. How to control outside Parks (1). House size (2). Width or width/length ratio (3). Exterior material (4) . Foundations (5). House moving Ordinance E. Rural/Urban Districts F. Other 9:30 P.M.-6. Manuf. Housing Park Ordinance -- discuss changes presented- Jan. 10, 1983 10:00 P.M.-7. Comp. Plan Amendments (Jan. 13, 1983 letter from Metro Council) 8. Other NOTE: Please bring your Nov. 5 and Dec. 9, 1982 MEMOS on MOBILE HOMES - MANUFACTURED HOUSING.