Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes <br />January 23, 2001 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />John Weicht, 13330 Island View Drive, stated that it was his understanding that <br />the County could expand their use under the current zoning, with a conditional <br />use permit. Mr. McPherson reviewed the ordinance definitions for government <br />buildings and government offices. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pederson stated he did not feel it makes sense to allow a public <br />works facility as a conditional use in a residential neighborhood, and yet <br />governmental offices are not allowed. <br /> <br />Patty Patterson, 18268 Ogden Street, stated that her backyard abuts the jail. She <br />stated that she is aware that the jail is generating a lot of money and she could <br />not understand why they can not have a better barrier to protect their view. She <br />stated that they tried to sell their property once, but they were unable to. Ms. <br />Patterson stated that they built their house with the intention of staying there a <br />long time. She stated that they do not feel like they are in the country anymore. <br /> <br />Jim Sletten, 18137 Ogden Street, expressed his disappointment with the <br />landscaping that was done when the jail expansion was completed. He felt <br />there was a much better barrier for the residential homes by Softpak and <br />questioned why something like this wasn't done for the residents living next to the <br />jail. He did not feel the County made an attempt to provide an adequate <br />means of visual protection. He stated that he did not want to see another <br />County building constructed without a proper buffer. <br /> <br />Chair Mesich questioned why the jail expansion was not reviewed by the <br />Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated that if a proposal is a permitted use, <br />the application is reviewed administratively. The County did come before the <br />Board of Adjustments regarding reducing the amount of landscaping, but the <br />application was withdrawn. <br /> <br />Ben Anderson, 13710 183,d Avenue, stated that he wanted to see this property <br />used in the best way for the whole community. He questioned why Outlot F was <br />left residential. He stated that the newspaper report quoted Sheriff Bruce <br />Anderson stating that the County wanted this area set aside for possible future <br />expansion of the prison and that it was a good money-making situation. He <br />stated that he was concerned that money not be the bottom line in the City's <br />motivation regarding the best use of this land. He supported using the property <br />to compliment what is already going on in the government facility, to keep <br />people from going back in to the prisons or from going in at all. <br /> <br />Linda Anderson, 18287 Ogden Street, stated that before moving to Elk River, they <br />lived near a business park and dealt with the noise and trucks coming and going. <br />She stated that they have already had to accept the Softpak development and <br />stated that they did not want to see Outlot F developed into business park. She <br />felt that residential also provides tax base with increasing property values. Ms. <br />Anderson stated that she and her husband commute to the Twin Cities for their <br />jobs and that they like to come home to the peace and quiet of their <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Chair Mesich asked the County to address the landscaping issue. <br /> <br /> <br />