07-26-2005 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- 3.THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY. 4.THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. MOTION FAILED 4-3. Commissioners Scott, Offerman, Ropp and Westgaard opposed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY L & M DEVELOPMENT FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OS (OPEN SPACE) TO UR (URBAN RESIDENTIAL), CASE NO. LU 05-04 TO THE AUGUST 9, 2005 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 5-2. Chair Anderson and Commissioner Stevens opposed. 5.2. Request by L & M Development for Preliminary Plat (Pinewood Estates Second Addition), Public Hearing – Case No. P 05-13 Senior Planner Harlicker reviewed the request by L & M Development to plat the 27-acre golf course site into 54 single family lots. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the layout of the lots and streets, Parks & Recreation Commission recommendations, and landscaping requirements. He noted that although all the lots meet the 11,000 square foot lot size minimum, but that Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1 do not meet the minimum lot depth requirement. Staff recommends that the plat be modified to eliminate these lots. Mr. Harlicker also noted that Sherburne County will not allow an access for Lot 22, Block 3 onto County Road 30; therefore, staff recommends that it be left as an outlot. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat based on the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Westgaard asked for clarification on the letter from the County Public Works regarding access to Lots 25 and 26, Block 2 being denied. Mr. Harlicker explained that the plat reviewed by them has since been revised and the lot in question regarding access is Lot 22, Block 3. Commissioner Westgaard asked how the side versus the rear setback is determined for Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1. Mr. Harlicker explained staff’s interpretation, noting that the developer has a different interpretation. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Andrew Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Opposed the plat. He asked if there was adequate turn around space. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated yes, that the streets meet the City’s requirements. Mr. Brown stated that Elk River is not Los Angeles and he did not see the need for the excessive housing density. He stated that the City should not allow the additional 100 feet of cul-de-sac being proposed, or the lot frontage to be less than 80 feet. He felt the developer should be held accountable for desecrating the site and he would only “take the money and run”. Mr. Brown discussed the burden which would be placed on the residents of Pinewood Addition by water and sewer assessments. He stated that the residents are only on their third year of paying assessments for a street overlay and the developer would be tearing up the streets. Mr. Brown discussed impacts of the additional traffic, vacancy rate of new homes, and the need to preserve open space. Mr. Brown concluded by stating that the