CC_Minutes_2004_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

l'age ) ot 10 requirements of the zoning ordinance, it would result in conflicting land uses and the unnecessary conversion of farmland, in violation of the comprehensive guide plan. Accordingly, it recommended that approval be denied. PTL declined an opportunity to reconfigure its preliminary plat, opting instead to submit it to the Chisago County Board of Commissioners. In May 2002, PTL presented its preliminary plat to the board. Once again, Heemsbergen stated that, although the preliminary plat "appeared to be perfectly legal, dimensionally speaking," it was poorly designed and incompatible with surrounding land uses. The board asked PTL to consider reconfiguring the proposed plat with a clustering of building sites and "a more aesthetically pleasing road with a curved design." PTL agreed to resubmit its application to the planning commission. At the planning commission's next meeting, PTL presented a letter from an assistant county surveyor, stating that the preliminary plat met all the requirements of the ordinance. PTL told the commission that its own surveyor and other professional consultants had indicated that the property did not lend itself to a cluster design. PTL also stated that the Fish Lake Township engineer had recommended against the requested curved road. Noting that nothing had changed since the previous meeting, the planning commission recommended denial once again. In June 2002, the board of commissioners considered PTL's application a second time and asked Heemsbergen to prepare findings supporting its decision to deny it. The board later adopted Heemsbergen's findings and conclusions and denied approval of the preliminary plat by a 3-2 vote, reasoning that the proposed development (l) was incompatible with existing land uses, in violation of section 1.02(1) of the Chisago County Subdivision Ordinance; (2) would negatively impact the surrounding communities; (3) was inefficient and poorly planned, in violation of section 1.02(C) of the subdivision ordinance; and (4) failed to implement the Chisago County Comprehensive Guide Plan, in violation of section 1.02(1) and (J) of the subdivision ordinance. The board also concluded that (l) the proposed plat contained no buffer from the surrounding incompatible uses; (2) the proposed lots did not meet the minimum dimensional requirements; (3) the preliminary plat failed to show the required setback and calculations showing no net increase of run-off leaving the site; and (4) the proposed road would require ongoing maintenance, would create three double- fronted lots, and could negatively impact an existing house. **3 This appeal followed. At oral argument, the board withdrew the bases for denial relating to the buffer, the minimum dimensional requirements, the setback and run-off calculations, and the proposed road. Accordingly, we consider only reasons relating to the incompatibility between the proposed and existing land uses, the inefficiency *571 of the proposed design, and the preliminary plat's failure to implement the comprehensive guide plan. ISSUES 1. Was the board of commissioners' decision to deny approval of a preliminary plat based on legally insufficient reasons, where the preliminary plat proposed a permitted land use and complied with the regulatory standards prescribed for that use? II. Did the comprehensive guide plan provide the board of commissioners with an independent source of authority for denying approval of a preliminary plat that proposed a permitted use and complied with the regulatory standards specified for that use? ANAL YSIS .. .ldelivery.htmI0dataid=A00558000000419 I 0003 9393 98B92C3E6DED02C543&dest=atp&f 3/25/2003