Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Elk River Planning Commission Minutes <br />May 25, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Commissioner Eberley questioned the rationale for the variance request <br />regarding lot sizes and asked Joyce Mickelson to comment whether or not <br />the request for a variance on lot size was an economic issue. Mrs. <br />Mickelson stated it was partly an economic issue. Commissioner Eberley <br />requested discussion regarding granting variances for the lots in <br />question if the request was based solely on economics. Commissioner <br />Kreger stated the variance request was not based solely on economics. <br />Environmentally, it would be far better to grant the variance versus <br />moving a currently stable road. Discussion between Commission members <br />ensued. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kreger requested discussion on whether or not it is the <br />duty of the Planning Commission to avoid landlock situations for the <br />benefit of the property owner and the City. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER KREGER RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE <br />FOR THE PLAT OF NORTH MEADOWS ADDITION BY <br />MICKELSON/PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. V 93-04, CITING <br />FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND STAFF'S MEMO DATED MAY <br /> <br />ASSOCIATED VARIANCES <br />DAVID AND JOYCE <br />INFORMATION GATHERED <br />20, 1993. <br /> <br />Commissioner Eberley <br />variance request. <br />economic issue. <br /> <br />questioned the <br />Chairman Minton <br /> <br />economics issue regarding the <br />explained it was not entirely an <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, <br />Chairman Minton, Commissioners Kreger, Kuester, Spotts and Tveite were <br />for the motion, Commissioner Eberley was against the motion. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER TVEITE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF <br />NORTH MEADOWS ADDITION BY DAVID AND JOYCE MICKELSON/PUBLIC HEARING, <br />CASE NO. P 93-07, CITING STAFF'S MEMO DATED MAY 20, 1993, WITH THE <br />FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: <br /> <br />1. THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY BE DEDICATED TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE <br />PLAT. <br /> <br />2. THE CITY ENGINEER APPROVES THE ROAD PLANS PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT <br />APPROVAL AND INSPECTS THE ROAD. <br /> <br />3. 50 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IS DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY FROM THE CENTER <br />LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 32. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />THE DEVELOPER OBTAIN A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FROM THE <br />ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. <br /> <br />COUNTY <br /> <br />5. LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DOES NOT HAVE A DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON COUNTY ROAD 32. <br /> <br />6. LOT 1, BLOCK 2, OBTAIN A DRIVEWAY PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY TO ACCESS <br />COUNTY ROAD 32. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />THE CITY ENGINEER APPROVES A GRADING AND <br />FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND INSPECTS <br />CONSTRUCTED. <br /> <br />DRAINAGE PLAN PRIOR TO <br />THESE IMPROVEMENTS WHEN <br />