Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1995 <br />mean that the uses are incompatible but that homeowners are made <br />aware of the uses of adjoining properties and that the people who <br />own the adjoining properties also have certain rights. <br />Council Member Bergeson explained that staff has already pointed <br />out the findings of fact such as the request is consistent with <br />the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, consistent with present and <br />future land uses, and performance standards of the preliminary <br />plat comply with all current City standards. He noted that it is <br />unusual for a preliminary plat to conform to all City standards <br />because of all the wetland regulations. Some preliminary plats <br />do have some undersized lots and some variances are needed. It <br />is important to note that no variances have been requested for <br />the preliminary plat Clearwater Creek. Council Member Bergeson <br />commented on other findings of fact such as the preliminary plat <br />can be accommodated by existing City services. The school <br />district situation was discussed and Council Member Bergeson <br />noted that not all new homes are a drain on a school district. <br />The taxes collected on a $70,000.00 or $80,000.00 new home may <br />cause a drain on a school district because on the average the <br />taxes collected on these homes will not cover the cost of the <br />students who come from that home. However, a home valued higher <br />than $150,000.00 is a plus for a school district. On the average <br />these homes generate more taxes than are spent to supply services <br />to that home. The comment was made that this matter was denied <br />by the Planning and Zoning Board. This is true, however it was <br />defeated on a four (4) to three (3) vote and that is as close to <br />a tie vote as you can get. Mr. Mesich outlined his reasons why <br />the matter should be denied and was very careful to stick to the <br />requirements. However after reading the minutes from that <br />Planning and Zoning Board meeting, it appeared that some other <br />members did not follow the same logic and that they may have <br />voted in terms of their view of what the pace of development <br />should be in Lino Lakes and that is beyond the scope of the <br />Planning and Zoning Board. Their responsibility is to make sure <br />that the development is technically correct. Council Member <br />Bergeson said that from what he has seen, he believes that the <br />proposed development is technically correct. <br />Council Member Elliott noted that Mr. Emmerich owns the land and <br />legally he has the right to develop it. It does open the <br />corridor that is needed for commercial growth and if the City <br />Council is going to be responsible for the entire City, the <br />Council has to look for commercial growth to take the burden off <br />of the taxpayers. Council Member Elliott noted that she lives on <br />Otter Lake Road and will have all of the cars "zooming" up and <br />down her side yard. She said she would love to see the area <br />remain rural. However, she does not own the land and to be <br />legally responsibe she has to approve everything about the <br />PAGE 18 <br />1 8 <br />