Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />Elk River Planning Commission Minutes <br />June 23, 1987 <br /> <br />After staff introduced this item, Gary Santwire, representative of Milo <br />Hennemann, spoke. He felt that as twin homes it would act as a buffer <br />between the single-family and the adjacent commercial zones. He further <br />went on to say that he felt that this would not be a spot zone since <br />replat #5 of Barrington Place PUD, which is abutting this property, is <br />twin homes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fuchs questioned the trees on the sight that he felt now act <br />as a buffer between the single-family and commerical. Commissioner Fuchs <br />also indicated that he felt that this zone change would reduce property <br />values in the residential area. Mr. Santwire responded by saying that <br />this property would either be developed as proposed with twin homes or <br />single-family homes, as it is currently zoned. He also felt that there <br />would be less impact on the trees buffering the existing single-family <br />with duplexes. His reasoning was that the same number of duplexes could <br />be built as single-family homes but be on half as many sites, and <br />therefore remove less trees. <br /> <br />Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing at this time. Nobody appeared <br />for or in opposition of this request, therefore, Chairman Wilson closed <br />the public hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Barrett indicated that he agreed with the proposal that it <br />would act as a buffer between the single-family residential and the <br />commerical districts. Mr. Barrett questioned staff at what the maximum <br />number of duplexes would be that could be put on this lot. Mr. Rohlf <br />indicated that the parcel was 3.5 acres and that eight density units per <br />acre as allowed in an R2-A district would make 28 units. Mr. Rohlf went <br />on to say that the maximum will not necessarily fit on each site, There <br />are other restraints and concerns that may reduce that. <br /> <br />Chairman Wilson indicated that he felt the request was reasonable and not <br />much more intense that the current zoning. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER <br />THIS REQUEST. <br /> <br />BARRETT MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF <br />THAT MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kropuenske indicated that because of business dealing with <br />Mr. Santwire in the immediate area, he would obstain from this vote. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kropuenske questioned the Chairman on a point of order <br />whether he could second the motion proposed by Mr. Barrett even if he was <br />not going to vote on it. Chairman Wilson indicated that he believes that <br />could be appropriate. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER <br />APPROVAL OF <br />THE MOTION. <br />COMMISSIONERS <br />OBSTAINED . <br /> <br />BARRETT AGAIN MOVED TO <br />THIS ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. <br />THE VOTE WAS 2 FOR. <br />FUCHS AND TEMPLE VOTED <br /> <br />RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL <br />COMMISSIONER KROPUENSKE SECONDED <br />TWO AGAINST AND 1 OBSTENSION. <br />NO. AND COMMISSIONER KROPUENSKE <br />