Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />r,~ <br />\ ~~~\ <br />-\\,\,)J '~ <br />~f t,\]" 'V <br />' ~,j.y~ e;'-t <br />l~, \' ''V <br />\ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />January 25, 1982 <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />Page Three A <br /> <br />of Third Avenue and south of the proposed Barthel PUD. This is an area where <br />Mr. George Dietz presently has an option to buy. He then indicated that the City <br />Administrator and himself would like to see a smaller PUD for sewered and water <br />areas. He also informed the Commission that the staff feels that a PUD is more <br />useful because of the number of different occupancies and the control the City <br />has over uses, landscaping, etc. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gunkel asked if that meant that the City supply sewer and water or <br />is it privately owned? <br /> <br />Rick Breezee stated that it was, but it also could be possible for a large private <br />water and sewer system; but because of the cost, it would not be feasible. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gunkel is opposed to the change for the following reasons: 1) The <br />ordinance states that a 'PUD shall be served by adequate water and sewer systems'. <br />Does this mean City sewer and water? 2) The main purpose of a PUD is to plan a <br />large tract of land in an orderly fashion. A PUD has no specific zone within its <br />boundaries. Allowing 10 acre PUDs would allow too many boundaries. Allowing 10 ac- <br />re PUDs would allow too many spot-mixtures. 3) Most areas close to downtown <br />are covered in the zone recommendations of the HRA. 4) A 10-acre minimum lead <br />to too many PUD areas. This is a cop-out. 5) Much thought and discussion went <br />into the decision that established the present PUD requirements. This also in- <br />volved considerable participation on the part of private citizens. The present re- <br />quirements should not be altered to accommodate a couple of developers. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gunkel suggests that areas less than 20 acres should be specifically <br />zoned. <br /> <br />Chairman Tracy agrees with Commissioner Gunkel. 20 acres seems to be a workable <br />and already established way. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce then asked if any PUD must be sewered. <br /> <br />Rick Breezee indicated that it does require sewer. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gunkel indicated that do we make changes with just 2 or 3 requests, or <br />do they follow an established ordinance that is presently in existence? <br /> <br />Mr. Tony Hipp, of the East Side Concerned Citizens, agrees with Commissioner Gunkel's <br />PUD concept idea. He feels that the 20 acre minimum is a good amount. <br /> <br />Cllairman Tracy closed the discussion to the public at 8 :05 P .ID. <br /> <br />MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL, SECONDED BY COM}fISSIONER PEARCE, TO DENY THE ZONE <br />CHANGE A}ffiNDMENT TO ALLOW 10 ACRE PUD'S IN SEWERED AREAS. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />6. Consider Review of the Preliminary Do\vuto\vu Development Plan <br /> <br />Zack Johnson, City Planner, was present to answer any questions the Commission had <br />regarding the dO\vutO\Vll re-development plan. He was representing the HRA of Elk River. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gunkel asked several questions regarding the HRA's re-development <br />plan. She indicated that she felt that the HRA plan in every area recommends <br />that existing building be removed. She states that the plan should a) state <br />which ones HRA specifically intends to remove, and b) is relocation intended <br />in any instances. \Vhat and where would this be done? And c) removing many of <br />these buildings is removing a lot of charachter of the City of Elk River, <br />