My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.3.B. SR 05-14-2007
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2007
>
05/14/2007
>
5.3.B. SR 05-14-2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:36:54 AM
Creation date
5/11/2007 2:53:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
5/14/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />City of Elk River <br /> <br />Memo <br /> <br />To: <br />From: <br />CC: <br /> <br />Date: <br />Re: <br /> <br />Michael Draeger <br />Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager <br /> <br />April 27, 2007 <br />Summary of Planning Commission discussion <br /> <br />The following items were discussed by the Planning Commission at their meeting on April 24. The City <br />Council will receive these comments at their workshop review on May 14, 2007. <br /> <br />1. How does this project compare to the previously approved land use in terms of tax capacity, traffic and <br />utility needs, etc. <br /> <br />2. One Planning Commissioner felt that money should be earned near the train station, not spent <br />(Employment center) <br /> <br />3. Some had concern with the proximity to adjacent residential (to the south and east). <br /> <br />4. What are the expected traffic impacts to the area roads, intersections? <br /> <br />5. Can the utility and street infrastructure handle this change? What is the impact? <br /> <br />6. Architecture (what will it look like, specifics) <br /> <br />7. Location: <br /> <br />a. How much land do you need? <br /> <br />b. How close to the train station, traffic corridors <br /> <br />c. Expandability of ancillary, support businesses (Restaurants, shopping, etc.) <br /> <br />8. One Cormnissioner was cautious against changing the land use plan for this subject property, saying that <br />property owners had provided a significant voice during the development of that plan. <br /> <br />9. In addition to these comments and those previously disnibuted , Staff also was add: <br /> <br />a. The need or benefit of the residential within the parcel <br /> <br />b. Environmental impact with the water table, wetlands (feasibility of construction). <br /> <br />c. What are the actual amenities within facility (ice sheets, climbing walls, etc) <br /> <br />d. Timing and phasing of the project. Ski facility first, ancillary uses second <br /> <br />Additional comments will be forthcoming as direction from the Council is received. If you would like to <br />discuss these processes further, please contact me. I can be reached at 763/ 635-1034. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />Jeremy Barnhart, AICP <br />Planning Manager <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.