Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Elk River Planning Commission Minutes <br />May 31, 1988 <br /> <br />Management Plan. He indicated that the lots abutting Proctor to the <br />north are included in the medium density residential zone and they <br />are much larger lots than those in the Ridgewood and Brentwood areas. <br />He stated he would prefer to see the lots along Proctor Avenue in <br />the low density residenta1 area. <br /> <br />4) <br /> <br />Jim Nord - Questioned <br />larger parcels would <br />indicated that this <br />residential area. <br /> <br />the areas where no development or splitting of <br />be allowed without sewer and water. It was <br />would be the case in the medium density <br /> <br />5) Frank Madsen Proctor Road - Questioned the proposed neighborhood <br />park west of Proctor Avenue marked on map 7-B. It was indicated that <br />these were merely proposed locations and not definite areas as of <br />yet. Mr. Madsen indicated that the topography of the land located on <br />the southeast corner of Ridgewood Avenue is such that it would be <br />impossible to have medium density residential lots of 1/2 to 1/3 acre <br />in size. He requested that the Planning Commission consider changing <br />this area to low density residential. <br /> <br />6) Irv Moldenhauer Orono Road & Mississippi Road - Questioned the <br />difference between high and medium density residential. <br /> <br />7) Stewart Wilson 17975 Troy Street Commented on the property <br />located south of Highway 10, west of the Courthouse. He indicated <br />that according to map 6-B this is marked as potential industrial <br />property. He indicated he would prefer to see a specific land use <br />for this property which would be compatible with the existing <br />courthouse. He indicated that highway business would be more <br />compatible than industrial and possibly this could be accomplished by <br />zoning the area PUD. <br /> <br />There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Kropuenske <br />closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olsen questioned the reasoning for requ1r1ng a 10 acre <br />minimum lot size in the agricultural zoned areas as opposed to five <br />acres. Chairman Kropuenske indicated that ten acres was proposed in <br />order to control the growth of leap frog development and that this would <br />allow the 2~ acre zone to develop before development occurs in the outer <br />city limits. He further indicated that there is a large demand for 10 <br />acre sites as opposed to 5 acre sites. <br /> <br />Commissioner Barrett arrived at this time. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER FUCHS <br />PLAN AS PRESENTED <br />REVISIONS: <br /> <br />MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT <br />IN THE MAY 1988 DRAFT COpy WITH THE FOLLOWING <br />