My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-24-2021 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2020 - 2029
>
2021
>
08-24-2021 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2021 9:11:42 AM
Creation date
10/5/2021 9:11:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
8/24/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Planning Commission <br />August 24, 2021 <br />Page 2 <br />process of the Comprehensive Plan document amendment and updates made from <br />the previous plan dated 2014. <br />Tim Thoreen from HR Green then discussed the transportation and mobility <br />portion of the plan. He explained roadway realignments and future potential impacts. <br />Look at key recommendations; they discussed those throughout the presentation. <br />Chair Larson -Vito opened the public hearing. <br />Lance Lindberg —18621 Simonet Drive, Elk River, stated he was a member of the <br />Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), and he was happy with most of <br />the plan but had concerns with the recommendation of rural lot placement in the <br />Urban Service Expansion area. He explained his concerns with the difficulty getting <br />additional lots into the proposed neighborhood like Ridgewood and could not see <br />where it was possible to split current parcels. He also noted concerns with the <br />Windsor Woods and Greenhead Acres developments. He stated he felt the cost to <br />install city services would be high and asked what percentage of votes would be <br />required from the neighboring property owners to approve proposed upgrades. <br />Mr. Carlton explained the process of road improvements with a full reconstruction <br />for a neighborhood and explained it would typically be a majority of property <br />owners, but that the decision would ultimately come down to a council vote. <br />Mr. Lindberg asked questions about scenarios about future lot sales and buyers being <br />forced to connect to services. <br />Mr. Carlton stated that as the ordinance currently reads, if sewer and water are <br />available within a public right-of-way and within 300' of a building, the resident is <br />required to connect at time of sale or septic failure. He noted it would be up to each <br />individual buyer to make the decision whether to connect immediately or wait for a <br />future trigger. <br />Chair Larson -Vito stated the plan is a governing document to develop a city in an <br />orderly fashion. She stated she was also on the CPAC and when she made the <br />recommendation to the committee regarding the areas that have the capacity to <br />support additional residential development, and to leverage existing roadway <br />infrastructure, her perspective was coming from the wife of a firefighter. When a fire <br />call comes in, fire fighters ask, "Does this house have a hydrant? What truck do they <br />bring?" She explained if the city expands services in the future, they should do it in a <br />logical way and not draw unusual boundaries around neighborhoods, which could <br />somehow inadvertently miss homes, and further complicate public safety services <br />among other things. She noted it was not her intent to add any cost to homeowners <br />but to ensure logic. She stated the city currently has lots that don't have coverage and <br />are waiting for septic systems to fail. <br />Mr. Lindberg asked what would happen if a resident had a septic failure. <br />V <br />Ee er <br />URE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.