Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/26/2021

Home

Debra Musgrove, 15247 Fluorine Street NW, asked staff for clarification on whether the 80-foot lot size is the minimum and whether larger lots would be allowed. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that the minimum lot size would be 80 feet wide and .25 acres in size. She stated that any proposal that meets those minimums would have to be approved. She stated that the developer could choose to go with larger lots, but the City could not require that as the request meets the bulk standards. She stated that the buffer yard was added to benefit the existing residents and review the additional elements staff is recommending such as trails. Chairperson Bauer asked how long the property has been zoned R-1. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that she is unsure but believes at least ten to 15 years. Chairperson Bauer stated that the petition mentioned was against the smaller lot sizes. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl confirmed that previous requests from this property and the Makowsky property included lot sizes of 55, 65, and 75 feet and that rezoning request was denied with very firm direction to continue with the 80-foot lots and no deviation from the bulk standards. Chairperson Bauer stated that the City did listen to those property owners that signed the petition as that zoning request was denied and the zoning remained the same as it had been for years. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that residents can continue to reach out to staff to determine if there is something that could make the project more palatable for them, such as trees near the property line being saved or trails. Ms. Beaterman referenced the Comprehensive Plan and asked if the City intends to maintain the rural community or whether it intends to have all the rural properties developed into small lots. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that there is a municipal urban service area (MUSA) and the properties within that area are meant to have City sewer and water services. She noted that the properties outside of that area are not guided for City utilities. She noted that the majority of acreage is not guided for City utilities. John Weberg, 17512 Nowthen Boulevard, stated that he has concern with traffic and the road conditions. He stated that more vehicles would only increase the maintenance problems that already exist on the road. He asked if the Council has addressed how the road will be maintained. He asked if the developer has been on the property and whether there would be issues with the smell from adjacent livestock. He stated that it would not be fair to have new residents move to the area only to complain about the animals on adjacent properties. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that if the property is in compliance with the Code standards for keeping of animals (cows, chickens, etc.) there would be no issue, even if there is a complaint. She stated that she will follow up with the resident to address any concerns about his animals. Planning Commission/ August 26, 2021 Page 15 of 26