Agenda 07-06-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map and Land Use Map Page Three • to rebuild to the same size and configuration currently y occupying the site. The th d map, title Map 8-c in the lower right-hand corner, deals with the problem of the ' u zone immediately north of Main Street and west the Guardian Angels Nursing Home. As e Council will recall, a problem developed in that a number of the parcels were less t' 20 acres in size and therefore were not eligible to be included in. a PUD zone. As uch, it was the recommendation of the City Staff that t-he -area.'in. question be re-zened.'.to specific-district-,-as illustrated on the=mapand that'-thezone revert back to an -1+ use across the entire area. The Planning Commissio voted to approve all of the changes and suggestions recommended by the City Staff on the .closed maps. The Planning Commission consi. ed two other language changes at their July 28th meeting, which had not been pre ..usly considered by the City Council. One change is a housekeeping item that clarif - the PUD Zone language to indicate that the 20 acres in question should be under • •ified control or ownership. The other language change considered by the Planning Commi 'on concerned the compounding of uses in the R and C zones; specifically, that single faa 'ly housing was permitted in the multi-family districts and also, to a certain extent, in C-1 district. As a result, the Planning Commission recommended approval of language tha. eliminated single family housing from the multi-family zone and the commercial zone. change necessary would read as follows under the permitted uses in R-I of 6 Sub. language would read: Uses permitted in R-3 Items B and C and R-2 Item C. In the *emitted uses for the C-1 • zone, which would be Item 7 Sub.A, the language would re. : Multi-family dwellings containing at least 12 dwelling units. With the above changes and suggestions, the Planning Commission animously approved the Land Use Map, Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance and recommended hat the City Council also grant approval. With a few exceptions, the City Staff supports all of the recommendations and changes made by the Planning Commission. The most notable difference, or exception, is the language change in the A-1 zone, which would leave the zone at 5 acres rather than 22 acres, as suggested by the City Council. The City Staff feels that the 21 acre minimum in the A-1 district still enables the City to exercise adequate control over growth and development in the outer areas of the City of Elk River. In view of the current market conditions, a 5 acre minimum would more than likely eliminate all growth, rather than simply control growth. It is the City Staff's opinion that the City Council's intent is not to eliminate growth but to control growth. As such, the City Staff does not recommend that the City Council delete items number 19 and 20 as indicated in the June 25th, 1980 memo from Dave Sellergren, Dick Nowlin and Zack Johnson and thereby leaving the A-1 zone at a minimum of 5 acres. If the • ouncil is to leave enclosed light manufacturing as a conditional use in the C-3 zone a once discussed, it is recommended that the Council adopt language which requires that t - osed light manufacturing be accompanied by related sales operations. The language sug:- in the July 11th, 1980 memo from Dick Nowlin is somewhat vague in that respect and it City Staff's opinion that if this is to • be considered a conditional use, that both lig - • facturing and sales should be part of the operation in question.