6.8. SR 05-17-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Planning Commission Page 9 February, 24, 2004 stated that he felt the Commission understands dxat a full submittal was made and that some modifications will be made before the next Planning Commission meeting. He stated that they did not ask to be tabled but that they are willing to be tabled La order to address some of the comments received at tonight's meeting. Scott Breuer, applicant, stated that they have been working closely with staff for months, and made the revision in order for the Commission to review that change at dnls meeting. He stated that they are ~lot trying to pull anTthing; that is not how they do business, but ~h~at everyone has a right to their opinion. He suggested dnat kf residents have questions, they should talk to staff find out fi.they have accommodated rlem in providing a complete package and met all their criteria. A resident asked if the developer was proposing these smaller homes because of the economic conditions. Mr. Breuer stated that the reason a plan was submitted with a yin-deV of homes was based on the three workshops held with the Planning Commission and staff where there were comments that Elk River does not need all these $400,000-$500,000 homes. He stated that it has been difficult to get clear direction which way the2' should go. He stated that they, are tznAng to come to a compromise to please as many people as possible. He stated that they can build different homes at different paces, and that the change to dnese types of lots and homes was based on what they were asked to consider. He stated that k is not the case that they are proposing to build a large number of cheap homes based on the economy. A resident asked how he could get copy of the staff report. Mr. t-Iarlicker stated that residents wishing to obtain further information should contact City Hall. He asked if the developer will make more money with 113 homes or with 135 homes. Mr. Breuer stated that k would be about the same. He asked if it would matter to lVir. Breuer what size the sizes were. He stated no. Chair Pederson closed the public hearing at rids time. Commissioner Stevens stated that he concurred that too many homes are being proposed for the site. He encouraged Ms. Lanthier to attend a City Council meeting and express her thoughts on a tree preservation ordinance at the Open Mike portion of the meeting. He lek that there is no place for children to play in this proposal and that neighborhood parks are needed. He stated that he felt the proper~ needs the same care and attention that Oudot A of Brentwood received, and that more care needs to be taken to meet the needs of this property and the surrounding properties, i-Ie stated that he does not support the plat as proposed and asked that the developer rethink his proposal. Commissioner Anderson stated that he supported tabling the request in order to allow dine to look at the drainage issues. He stated that he felt the developer is only guilty of rating to listen to too many opinions of the Planning Commission, the Park and Recreation Commission and city staff, lie stated the developer has met with them ~ number of times, and that it is unfair cAddsm that this developer is trying to sack anyrldng down their throats. He stated that the applicant is in the business to make money, but that he has shown a willingness to work with them. lie felt that by tabling this request it may be possible to work out an alternative plan but that he was not sure how a cluster would work in an urban service area. Also, he stated tlnat by tabling the request, drainage issues could be worked and the possibility of a tree inventory could be pursuecL He noted that the street connections make sense and have been piarn~ed all along. Commissioner _Anderson stated that he agreed that custom grading of the lots should be considered to save rz'ees as well as a reforestation