My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3.0. BASR 09-28-2004
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Board of Adjustments
>
BOA Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
09-28-2004
>
3.0. BASR 09-28-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2015 2:54:06 PM
Creation date
8/20/2015 2:54:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
BASR
date
9/28/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
We also concur with the city's proposal to amend the boundary in Section 34, the <br /> downtown area. The statutory reference to the need for flexibility clearly was written with <br /> • this kind of situation in mind—it would not be appropriate to classify the community's <br /> historic downtown area as nonconforming uses. We are somewhat uncomfortable, <br /> however, with shifting the boundary this close to the river and the resulting uncertainty <br /> about such things as the height of new structures that close to the river. We would like to <br /> see some assurance that new structures in the historic downtown area would be no taller <br /> than the typical downtown structures now found there. <br /> • <br /> 2. Ordinance changes to accomodate urban residential development <br /> • <br /> We concur with your proposal to allow urban services and to modify lot size requirements <br /> so they are compatible with urban lots and the city's comprehensive plan, while keeping <br /> the frontage and setback requirements of the wild and scenic standards. We concur with <br /> your proposal to remove reference to duplexes, triplexes and quads in unsewered areas. <br /> 3. Specific changes to the wild and scenic ordinance <br /> We concur with your proposed "bluff' definition. We concur with your proposed 2.5 acre <br /> lot size minimum for unsewered lots. We concur with your proposal to allow urban services <br /> while retaining the wild and scenic ordinance's unsewered frontage, setback and lot size <br /> requirements. Again, we concur with your proposed elimination of duplexes, triplexes and <br /> • quads in unsewered areas. <br /> The effect of the proposed changes would be to provide the city with greater flexibility in <br /> its urban setting, without compromising the "scenic, recreational, natural, historical, <br /> scientific and similar values"(M.S. 103F.305)of the wild and scenic rivers program. Thank <br /> you for working so hard to arrive at a solution to this long-standing problem. <br /> ly yours, <br /> John Linc Stine, Administrator <br /> Permits and Land Use Section <br /> DNR Waters <br /> cc: Larry Kramka <br /> Dave Hills <br /> Steve Johnson <br /> • • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.