My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. SR 03-31-1997
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1997
>
03/31/1997 - SPECIAL
>
4.1. SR 03-31-1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:47 AM
Creation date
7/28/2003 8:13:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/31/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Memo to City Council and Planning Commission <br />February 19. 1996 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />What ordinances are in place controlling the growth of residential <br />.development? <br /> <br />The intent of the ordinance for all property zoned residential within the <br />urban service area is to have these areas developed as urban sized lots <br />(10,000-14,000 square feet). What is not clearly stated in the ordinance is the <br />minimum lot size if a property owner wanted to subdivide residential <br />property prior to city water and sewer. As staff has stated in the past, under <br />these conditions, the minimum lot size should be kept as large as possible (10 <br />acres) to provide for the efficient extension of utihties at a later date. <br /> <br />The second problem that currently exists is that the newly expanded urban <br />service area between County Road 12/13 is zoned Rla. This zoning <br />designation allows a minimum lot size of 2-1/2 acres. Assuming this area <br />will ultimately be developed with city water and sewer, the zoning and/or <br />minimum lot size will have to be increased for the reasons stated above. <br /> <br />In no way are these proposed increases in the minimum lot size suggesting <br />that no one can subdivide their property. This merely is an attempt to <br />manage the subdivision of land and preserve the opportunities for either the <br />city or landowner (developer) to extend utihties in an efficient manner. <br /> <br />.Why not allow commercial and industrial development to occur prior <br />.t,o having city water and sewer available? <br /> <br />First of all, it is important to highlight the size and geographic area of the <br />urban service boundary. If commercial and industrial development had no <br />boundaries, there would be no management to this growth pattern. <br />Development could occur in a scattered/random pattern throughout the entire <br />urban service district. Secondly, it should be made clear that commercial and <br />industrial development can occur without city water and sewer. This has <br />happened along east Highway 10 for years. It is also happening along <br />Highway 101 between Rogers and Elk River as well as though the City of <br />Ramsey. However, this type of development can be different than what may <br />be found in a sewer and water area. If development without water and sewer <br />was to occur, several questions would need to be asked: <br /> <br />· How difficult will it be for the city or landowners to extend utilities <br /> at a later date given the existing business that may be in place? <br />· Why would property owners near the edge of the urban service <br /> district have any interest in developing with city water and sewer? <br /> <br />s:\council\gmp.doc <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.