3. & 4. PCSR 08-09-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 2005 As I will be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on August 9, 2005, this memo will include my comments regarding items on the agenda. While I recognize I will not be able to vote on the items on the agenda, I will share my recommendations for the commission to consider. . 1. Gateway Business Center- The plat looks fine to me. I do not have any comments regarding this item. 2. Case LU 05-04. Land Use Amendment- I see this as a housekeeping issue to provide consistency between the current zoning and the corresponding land use associated with the zoning in place. To me this is a throwaway issue, the plat issue is the actual battleground. As in our prior meeting I would fully support the recommendation for approval of this item. 3. Case P 05-13. L&M Development. Pinewood Plat Approval- It is unfortunate that we have a developer who has been so intransigent in pushing a plat that clearly is not in anyone's best interest. I do not see how the plat presented by the developer makes Elk River a better place to live. The developer plat as does not provide the needed buffer between the existing housing and proposed housing. While, except for the four lots in question, 6, 7, 8 and 22, the plat does meet the minimum standards of our subdivision ordinance, I would prod the developer to use some imagination in the design of the development. I fully support the staff's recommendation to remove lots 6, 7, 8, and 22 from the plat, leaving them as open space or outlots. I would also support the staff recommendation condition number 21 to promote the larger lot sizes adjacent to the existing larger lots. While I support condition #21, I would also appreciate the opinion of legal counsel on whether that condition is legally defensible as it does exceed our minimum standard in the subdivision code. The plan as presented by staff does meet the intent of the statement, "Not the highest and best use of the owners property but an acceptable use." The staff's recommendation is a good mid-point position that meets the developers ability to receive a profit on the land and provides consideration for the surrounding land owners. While I understand the frustration of the residents of Pinewood, we can not require an existing land owner or the city to operate a money losing venture. If the Pinewood residents are so inclined to protect the existing value of their property they may consider forming an ownership group, raising funds and offering the existing owner a higher price than L&M. Their other alternative is to petition the court system to enforce whatever available restrictive covenants, if any, that exist. While I cannot vote on this item because of my absence, I would be supportive of the plat as presented with either all 21 conditions or with condition 21 removed. (If possible I would like to have my above comments placed in the record in some fashion, most likely through the Public Hearing portion of the discussion.) 4. Item 6 Ouestions for new commission applicants.- I fully support all the questions as listed by the staff. I particularly like #2 and # 6. .