My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-09-2005 PC MIN - SPECIAL
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2000 - 2009
>
2005
>
08-09-2005 PC MIN - SPECIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:27 AM
Creation date
9/8/2005 11:09:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
8/9/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Special Planning Commission Minutes <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />August 9, 2005 <br />--------------------------- <br /> Andrew Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Stated that the developer was asked to put <br />together a plan to increase the size of the lots and they have refused. He stated that because <br />other golf courses are closing, that makes this one even more valuable. <br /> <br /> There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Ropp asked if there was any information available regarding the idea of the <br />City purchasing the golf course and running it. Ms. McPherson stated that this is not an <br />issue for the Planning Commission to address. She stated that when the neighbors spoke to <br />the issue at an open mike portion of the July 18 City Council meeting, this idea was “hinted <br />th <br />at”, but that the City must balance this with other types of public community needs, such as <br />purchasing park land, a YMCA, and other projects. Other issue include whether or not the <br />City can afford to operate the site, and how the residents would be impacted by a more <br />intensive public use of the course. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Ropp asked if it would be appropriate to condition the approval of the plat, <br />providing that the City is not interested in purchasing the property. Ms. McPherson stated <br />that she did not feel this type of condition was within the Commissioner purview, and they <br />must only look at the land use and plat. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Offerman asked if this was the first time staff has seen the new layout. Mr. <br />Harlicker stated yes. Mr. Harlicker stated that he would still recommend that the lot with no <br />access be platted as an outlot. Commissioner Offerman stated that he felt it was the <br />responsibility of the developer to make revisions to conform with the existing lots. He <br />stated that he could only support approval of the plat with Condition #21 which requires a <br />minimum of 20,000 square foot lots adjacent to the existing Pinewood lots. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Lemke stated that it is the role of the Planning Commission to look at the <br />facts and make recommendations. He stated that he is generally in favor of the plat, but that <br />he was disappointed the developer did not consider an option with less density. He stated <br />he also supported approval with Condition #21. Commissioner Lemke asked what will <br />happen if the City Council approves the plat with the larger lot sizes. Ms. McPherson stated <br />that the plat would need to be revised prior to final plat approval. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Lemke stated that he felt the increased lot sizes as stated in Condition #21 is <br />an acceptable compromise. <br /> <br /> Jenny Hedrick, representing the applicant – Stated that they ask the Commission to <br />follow the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Lemke stated that the residents are asking “think of us”, and they must also <br />think of the landowners. He felt this was a good compromise and that he was generally in <br />favor of the request. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Westgaard stated that he generally agreed with Commissioner Lemke’s <br />comments. He stated that the 11,000 square feet lots for this district are a “minimum” and <br />allows a developer to go above and beyond that size. He felt the intent of the ordinance is <br />to provide consistency with existing residential neighborhoods. He stated he also would like <br />to see the lots abutting the Pinewood First Addition lots matched in size. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Scott stated that the owner of the property does have the right to do what he <br />pleases with the property within the rules. He felt the plan basically fits within those rules, <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.