My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-22-2001 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2000 - 2009
>
2001
>
05-22-2001 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:11 AM
Creation date
5/23/2005 8:23:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
5/22/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />May 22, 2001 <br />Page 15 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S <br />LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE BE SUBMITTED. <br /> <br />2. ANY EXPANSION THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPANSION <br />REQUEST SUMMARY AND EXHIBIT A SHALL REQUIRE <br />ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW. <br /> <br />3. ANY EXPANSION THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE <br />EXPANSION REQUEST SUMMARY OR EXHIBIT A SHALL REQUIRE <br />AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION <br />CARRIED 6-0. <br /> <br />5.9. <br /> <br />Request by City of Elk River for an Ordinance Amendment Regarding Government <br />Buildings and Facilities. Public Hearing - Case No. OA 01-06 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Staff report by Michele McPherson. The City of Elk River requests an ordinance <br />amendment to add as a conditional use in the Business Park District, government <br />buildings and facilities. She explained that by changing the definitions for <br />government office and government buildings and facilities, the current Sherburne <br />County Government Center became a nonconforming use. Approval of the <br />proposed amendment would allow the County to expand its facility with Planning <br />Commission and City Council approval. <br /> <br />Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair <br />Pederson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />The Commissioners discussed the pros and cons of adopting the proposed <br />ordinance. City Attorney Peter Beck stated that the Commission could chose to <br />redefine the courthouse definition. Ms. McPherson stated that she has requested <br />input from the County on this issue but she has not received any comments to date. <br />Commissioner Baker asked if there were any other options. Mr. Beck stated that a <br />new zoning district could be created but this would take some time. Ms. McPherson <br />stated that a zoning district is needed to address institutional or public facilities. <br />Discussion followed regarding whether to adopt the proposed ordinance or wait to <br />process a new ordinance amendment. Ms. McPherson noted that if the Commission <br />were to deny this amendment, they would need to provide findings for the denial. <br />She eXplained that if the ordinance is not approved, the County would not be able to <br />expand. Commissioner Schuster asked if the County would need a conditional use <br />permit. Ms. McPherson stated that they would need to meet the same standards as <br />any other conditional use permit, which requires Planning Commission and City <br />Council approval. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Commissioners to recommend that the City Council <br />direct staff to prepare and amendment to create a new zoning district for <br />institutional uses and public facilities, when time permits. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.