My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0524
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0524
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:30:09 AM
Creation date
2/9/2006 12:53:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/24/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
<br />l'age ) ot 10 <br /> <br />requirements of the zoning ordinance, it would result in conflicting land uses and the unnecessary <br />conversion of farmland, in violation of the comprehensive guide plan. Accordingly, it recommended <br />that approval be denied. PTL declined an opportunity to reconfigure its preliminary plat, opting <br />instead to submit it to the Chisago County Board of Commissioners. <br /> <br />In May 2002, PTL presented its preliminary plat to the board. Once again, Heemsbergen stated that, <br />although the preliminary plat "appeared to be perfectly legal, dimensionally speaking," it was poorly <br />designed and incompatible with surrounding land uses. The board asked PTL to consider <br />reconfiguring the proposed plat with a clustering of building sites and "a more aesthetically pleasing <br />road with a curved design." PTL agreed to resubmit its application to the planning commission. <br /> <br />At the planning commission's next meeting, PTL presented a letter from an assistant county surveyor, <br />stating that the preliminary plat met all the requirements of the ordinance. PTL told the commission <br />that its own surveyor and other professional consultants had indicated that the property did not lend <br />itself to a cluster design. PTL also stated that the Fish Lake Township engineer had recommended <br />against the requested curved road. Noting that nothing had changed since the previous meeting, the <br />planning commission recommended denial once again. <br /> <br />In June 2002, the board of commissioners considered PTL's application a second time and asked <br />Heemsbergen to prepare findings supporting its decision to deny it. The board later adopted <br />Heemsbergen's findings and conclusions and denied approval of the preliminary plat by a 3-2 vote, <br />reasoning that the proposed development (l) was incompatible with existing land uses, in violation of <br />section 1.02(1) of the Chisago County Subdivision Ordinance; (2) would negatively impact the <br />surrounding communities; (3) was inefficient and poorly planned, in violation of section 1.02(C) of <br />the subdivision ordinance; and (4) failed to implement the Chisago County Comprehensive Guide <br />Plan, in violation of section 1.02(1) and (J) of the subdivision ordinance. The board also concluded <br />that (l) the proposed plat contained no buffer from the surrounding incompatible uses; (2) the <br />proposed lots did not meet the minimum dimensional requirements; (3) the preliminary plat failed to <br />show the required setback and calculations showing no net increase of run-off leaving the site; and <br />(4) the proposed road would require ongoing maintenance, would create three double- fronted lots, <br />and could negatively impact an existing house. <br /> <br />**3 This appeal followed. At oral argument, the board withdrew the bases for denial relating to the <br />buffer, the minimum dimensional requirements, the setback and run-off calculations, and the <br />proposed road. Accordingly, we consider only reasons relating to the incompatibility between the <br />proposed and existing land uses, the inefficiency *571 of the proposed design, and the preliminary <br />plat's failure to implement the comprehensive guide plan. <br /> <br />ISSUES <br /> <br />1. Was the board of commissioners' decision to deny approval of a preliminary plat based on legally <br />insufficient reasons, where the preliminary plat proposed a permitted land use and complied with the <br />regulatory standards prescribed for that use? <br /> <br />II. Did the comprehensive guide plan provide the board of commissioners with an independent source <br />of authority for denying approval of a preliminary plat that proposed a permitted use and complied <br />with the regulatory standards specified for that use? <br /> <br />ANAL YSIS <br /> <br />.. .ldelivery.htmI0dataid=A00558000000419 I 0003 9393 98B92C3E6DED02C543&dest=atp&f 3/25/2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.