Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />April 28, 2016 <br />Page 3 <br />development and the size of their sub -association is not taken into consideration. He agreed that the association <br />matter was best held in a private manner, but wanted to express the difficulty they are having. <br />Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. <br />Commissioner Rosenquist stated that the HOA discussion should be left out of their discussion, but he really <br />likes the development and agrees with the conditions listed in the resolution. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated that he would like to remain transparent by saying that he was the property <br />owner to the north of the proposed development. He said that Rottlund made an agreement with him that they <br />would retain all of the trees along the most northern property line. He stated that this agreement was made <br />because the property was designated as medium density, while his property is agricultural. He stated a buffer <br />was necessary to separate these uses from one another. He asked the developer, Mr. Kettler, if he would be <br />willing to keep all existing trees within ten feet of the property line. <br />Mr. Kettler stated that he would be willing to do that. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated that he has a concern about the newly proposed road coming out onto <br />Elmcrest. He stated that he would like someone to look into this and make sure that there weren't too many <br />intersections too close together along Elmcrest. <br />Mr.Cheerhardt approached the podium. He stated that the roadway was always proposed there, even with the <br />Rottlund plan, which had twice the density. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated that when that road was approved before, they didn't know how much traffic <br />would be generated from other development in the area, but now we do. He stated that we could learn some <br />lessons from what we may not have done right in the past. <br />Juba stated that the City Engineer had looked at this situation when Rottlund proposed their development and <br />has since looked at it again with this proposed development. He stated that he is comfortable with the proposed <br />entrance onto Elmcrest, as proposed. Juba reminded the Commission that at some point, Elmcrest Avenue will <br />be upgraded and through future development of Lino Lakes, to the west, there will likely be a lot more accesses <br />points onto Elmcrest connecting to County Road 8. <br />Commissioner Patzner asked the applicant if they will be building all of the units at once and then selling them. <br />She stated that their proposal includes a variety of colors and architecture, but if owners are able to decide, there <br />could be the same colors or designs next to one another. <br />Mr. Kettler stated that there will be many different options of colors and building materials to pick from. He <br />stated that he will be transparent in letting buyers know that they are not allowed to "match" a home next to <br />theirs. He believes the variety he offers will allow the homes to have different appearances. <br />Juba added that the conditions of approval do require the development to have an architectural review <br />committee established with the HOA as more homes are built. <br />Chair Kleissler stated that there were three things that still needed to be worked on with the applicant, which <br />included exteriors, mailboxes, and mechanical units. She asked the applicant to comment on those. <br />