CC_Minutes_2004_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

t'age 4 ot IU OPINION WRIGHT, Judge. By writ of certiorari, relator PTL, LLC appeals from the Chisago County Board of Commissioners' denial of preliminary-plat approval. Relator argues that it is entitled to approval as a matter of right, because its preliminary plat satisfies the requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances in all respects. Alternatively, relator argues that (I) the record does not support the board's determination that the proposed development is inefficient, poorly designed, or incompatible with surrounding land uses, and (2) the board improperly relied on after-the-fact rationalizations not connected with the actual basis for denial of preliminary-plat approval. We reverse and remand. FACTS Relator PTL, LLC (PTL) is a real-estate development company seeking to develop approximately 70 acres ofland located in a district zoned "agricultural" in Chisago County. To that end, PTL submitted an application for preliminary approval of a plat consisting of 14 five-acre lots to be used for residential housing. The county's zoning ordinance permits single-family dwellings in agricultural districts at a maximum density of one dwelling per five-acre lot. Chisago County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance S 5.06(B)(l0) (1997). Accordingly, the Fish Lake Township Board and Plat Review Commission recommended approval ofPTL's preliminary plat. In April 2002, PTL presented its preliminary plat before the Chisago County Planning Commission. At the commission's monthly meeting, Environmental Services Director Marion Heemsbergen stated that, although the proposed lots met the dimensional requirements of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance, the planning commission preferred the "cluster or cove" design required for smaller lots to the "cookie cutter" design proposed by PTL. See id. S 7.18(B) (requiring cluster design for lots smaller than five acres). Heemsbergen expressed concern that because the proposed development was located in the middle of open farmland, it appeared to conflict with the goals and policies of the Chisago County Comprehensive Guide Plan, a "policy guide for managing growth in Chis ago County." Chisago County, Minn., Comprehensive Guide Plan, at ii (1995). rFN I] FNI. Among other things, the comprehensive guide plan seeks to protect long-term agriculture, to prevent incompatible land uses, and to encourage rural residential housing in areas where support services and market conditions exist. Id. at 28-29. **2 In addition to Heemsbergen, neighbors expressed concern that approval of the preliminary plat would result in increased traffic, unsightly lawns, lower property values, the sale of neighboring farms, and the loss of traditionally farmed agricultural *570 land. One neighbor worried that a proposed road would create a dead end at her field and cause problems with trespassers. In response to these concerns, PTL indicated that the land was sand rather than prime farmland, and that it had saved large trees to build a buffer between the proposed development and neighboring properties. PTL also indicated that because the plat was close to highway 95 and the city of Cambridge, it was compatible with the comprehensive guide plan's goal of providing low-density housing near a major highway that is close to schools and other towns. The planning commission concluded that, although the preliminary plat met the dimensional .../ deli very. I1tm! ?dataid=A005 5 80000004 I 9 I 0003 93 93 98B92C3 E6DED02C54 3&dest=atp&f 3/25/2003