My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.2. PRSR 12-10-2014
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
P&R Packets
>
2011-2020
>
2014
>
12-10-2014
>
7.2. PRSR 12-10-2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2014 10:45:40 AM
Creation date
12/10/2014 10:45:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PRSR
date
12/10/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
mindmixer PROJECT REPORTS Idea Report 1, <br /> Survey: Alternatives Analysis <br /> Question: Which of the Land Use Alternatives Do You Prefer? <br /> Land Use Option#1 : 2 <br /> Land Use Option#2 :2 <br /> Land Use Option#3 : 3 <br /> Question: What was your top reason for choosing the option you chose? <br /> I feel like we need more large businesses in Elk River. This option would <br /> provide businesses that people will be able to easily view as they drive <br /> through our town. <br /> It's a better mix of uses and does not include high density housing. <br /> Lesser of 3 evils. Possible modifications... (1)the southern portion of the <br /> Rural Industrial area(more adjacent to 221st)may be more appropriate as <br /> Industrial; (2)perhaps change the SE Industrial area(the one between the <br /> two Highway Business areas)to Flex Use-I don't know if it might be better <br /> to have a complete Highway Business stretch vs breaking it up with <br /> industrial. The Flex Use currently shown may be a good place for hi-density <br /> residential at the 205th intersection. <br /> My home is directly adjacent to the affected area. I would rather be in a <br /> residential area rather than surrounded by industrial buildings. <br /> Residential is further removed from the landfill downwind zones. No high <br /> density residential zones. <br /> Question:What did you dislike about the other options? <br /> #1 -not enough Highway Business potential. #2-putting High Density <br /> residential adjacent to the landfill may be a problem---at least until all the <br /> methane gas gone. Also needs more industrial and Rural Industrial <br /> High density housing <br /> I cannot imagine someone wanting to live so close to the landfill-even after <br /> fizj. www,P,AIndMlxer.corra <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.