My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.4. & 6.5. SR 04-16-2001
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2001
>
04/16/2001
>
6.4. & 6.5. SR 04-16-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:13 AM
Creation date
2/5/2003 8:49:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
4/16/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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 Minutes <br />January 23, 2001 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br /> Commissioner Baker asked if the County would have to move the County seat <br /> from that location, if they ran out of space. Mr. Benson stated that the County <br /> seat would not be moved, but that the offices would have to be split up and <br /> some would move to another location. Commissioner Baker asked if purchasing <br /> the property to the west were an option to the County. Mr. Benson stated that it <br /> was his understanding this property was sold. Ms. McPherson stated that the only <br /> piece of this property which as been "spoken for" is the piece north of Business <br /> Center Drive and that the property to the west is platted as one large lot and is <br /> already guided and zoned for business park development. She noted the City <br /> has not received any proposal to subdivide the property. Trunk utilities traverse <br /> the property east-west at the same location of the south boundary of Sherbume <br /> County's property. <br /> <br />Steward Wilson stated that when he spoke to Sherburne County staff prior to Mr. <br />Benson being the County Administrator, the County was not interested in <br />purchasing highway frontage property because of the additional expense and <br />because they did not need highway frontage. Because of that, the County has <br />never pursued purchasing any of his highway frontage property or the property <br />immediately to the west of the County. <br /> <br />Commissioner Baker asked what the process would be for the County to <br />purchase a portion of the property to the west. Ms. McPherson stated that the <br />property would need to be platted in the same manner as any other plat. <br /> <br />Nicole Bahr, 18222 Ogden Street, resident of Sandpiper Estates, stated that she <br />would be living directly across the street from the proposed business park. She <br />stated that she has been through the jail expansion issue and that the residents <br />were told it would be an office expansion. She expressed her dissatisfaction with <br />the fencing installed by the County. She stated that the 80 percent opacity <br />means "at the fence" and that the fence does nothing far their view of the jail <br />when looking out the window from inside their homes. She asked that the <br />Commission consider the impacts on the residents. Ms. Bahr stated that the <br />County is concerned about keeping their offices together in one location, but <br />that children are being bussed all over because the schools cannot be kept in <br />one location. <br /> <br />Caroline Koch, 19176 Ogden Street, stated that she sent a letter to the <br />Commissioners and City Council. Ms. McPherson noted that the letter was in the <br />Commissioner's packets. Stated that her property faces the jail and she feels it is <br />ugly. She does not feel the City needs so much business park; that it takes away <br />from the residential beautification of Elk River. ,She stated she is saddened that <br />Mr. Wilson did not sell his property for residential when he was given the <br />opportunity. She asked the Commission to consider the residents living there who <br />have children. She felt that the $oftpak building is an eyesore and she feat sorry <br />for the people living in the townhomes across from $oftpak. <br /> <br />Chair Mesich questioned if it would be fair to potential residents living in Outlot F <br />(if the zoning remained residentiall to be next to a business park. Ms. Koch stated <br />that these residents would already know it was zoned business park when they <br />bought their property. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.