My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2000-2005
>
2001
>
03-27-2001
>
5.2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2018 11:01:09 AM
Creation date
5/7/2018 11:01:08 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
• Sherburne County le <br /> ADMINISTRATOR <br /> BRIAN BENSEN <br /> March 22, 2001 13880 Highway 10 <br /> Elk River, MN 55330-4601 <br /> (763) 241-2701 O 1-800-433-5229 <br /> Michele McPherson, Director of Planning website: www.co.sherburne.mn.us <br /> email:admin@co.sherburne.mn.us <br /> City of Elk River <br /> P.O. Box 490 <br /> Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> Re: Case No. OA 01-03 <br /> Request to Amend Section 900.08 and 900.10.5 — <br /> Government Office and Facilities <br /> Ms. McPherson: <br /> Thank you for meeting with our County Board to explain and discuss the proposals and <br /> • definitions. That was very helpful, and I appreciate your time. <br /> I believe I understand the intent of the City Planning Commission is to allow most <br /> County (governmental)functions to be Permitted Uses in the Residential District. The <br /> exceptions, uses that could potentially create a larger impact on neighboring residences, <br /> would be listed as Conditional Uses in the Residential District. These Conditional Uses <br /> would include jails, public works facilities and waste handling facilities. The proposed <br /> ordinance changes would clarify the definitions and, I believe, would answer concerns of <br /> our neighbors. <br /> After discussion with the County Board, I am forwarding one request for your <br /> consideration. If the Planning Commission and City Council feel the change in <br /> definitions and the change in what is a permitted vs. a conditional use is a reasonable <br /> solution, one change from the proposed language is necessary. The proposal put <br /> "courthouses" in one definition while differentiating "county offices" in another. We <br /> would have great difficulty deciding where a courthouse ends and a county office <br /> building begins. Does the office of the County Attorney go in the courthouse or office <br /> building? Does it matter when using impact on the neighborhood as a standard? I think <br /> not, and request that"courthouse" remain in the definition of Governmental Offices, and <br /> thus would be permitted in the district. <br /> • <br /> An Equal Opportunity Employer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.