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 7 <br /> <br />August 9, 2005 <br />--------------------------- <br />except for those lots which are nonconforming. He asked that the developer take a hard <br />look at increasing the lot sizes. He stated that he could support a recommendation for <br />approval with the conditions as stated previously. <br /> <br /> Chair Anderson stated that as he stated at the previous meeting, he did not feel the density <br />was compatible with the existing neighborhood. He believed the transition between the old <br />and new was not smooth. He was not comfortable with the length of the cul-de-sac. He felt <br />that increasing the lot sizes should not necessarily have a negative impact on the bottom line, <br />and that given the desirable location of the project, the lots should receive in a good price. <br />He did not see any reason not to recommend approval with all of the conditions as stated. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Ropp stated that he was in agreement with all 21 of the recommended <br />conditions and expressed his appreciation to staff for their effort in providing them. <br /> <br /> Chair Anderson reviewed the comments of Commissioner Stevens. He summarized the <br />comments by stating that Commissioner Stevens felt it was unfortunate that the developer <br />did not meet with the Planning Commission informally first to discuss the project. He did <br />not feel the density provided an adequate buffer to the existing homes. He stated that Lots <br />6, 7, and 8, Block 1, and Lot 22, Block 3 should not be allowed as they don’t meet the City’s <br />requirements. He felt that he could support approval of the plat under the terms of <br />Condition #21, since he felt this would be a better fit with the existing residential <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br /> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO ACCEPT THE COMMENTS OF <br />COMMISSIONER STEVENS, THE PETITION FROM THE PINEWOOD <br />ESTATES RESIDENTS, AND THE PETITION FROM THE PINEWOOD <br />GOLF COURSE USERS INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD. THE MOTION <br />CARRIED 6-0. <br /> <br /> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE <br />PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST BY L & M DEVELOPMENT FOR <br />PINEWOOD ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, CASE NO. P 05-13, WITH THE <br />FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: <br /> <br /> <br />1.A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT BE PREPARED AND EXECUTED <br />OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT <br />APPROVAL PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. <br /> <br /> <br />2.A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE PREPARED AND <br />EXECUTED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. <br /> <br /> <br />3.SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE BE PAID IN THE AMOUNT <br />REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO <br />RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. <br /> <br /> <br />4.A SEALCOAT FEE IN THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE <br />CITY ENGINEER BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR <br />RECORDING. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.