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
Memo to the Mayor and City CouncilfZC 97-3 <br />October 20, 1997 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />At the August 26th public hearing 11 residents spoke out against the <br />rezoning. Their opposition was based on the same issues that were brought <br />up at the July 22nd meeting, incompatibility with the residential <br />development, traffic and crime. The owner of the property, Stewart Wilson, <br />indicated that he was not opposed to the rezoning. However, he felt that the <br />eastern portion of his property, adjacent to Sandpiper Estates, should remain <br />residential. This residential property would serve as a buffer between <br />Sandpiper Estates and the business park. The future residents of this <br />residential property would know prior to purchasing property that the <br />adjacent property to the west was zoned for a business park. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission voted 5:2 to deny the request for a the land use <br />amendment and rezoning. Those that voted to deny the request felt that it <br />was inappropriate considering the nearby residential development. <br /> <br />Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff prepared several different <br />development scenarios. The development scenarios included how the property <br />might develop under the proposed rezoning, how it might develop under the <br />existing residential zoning and how it might develop if part of the property <br />was rezoned and a portion left as residential. These scenarios will be <br />presented at the Council meeting. It should be noted the Planning <br />Commission did not have the benefit to review the development scenarios. <br />The illustrations may have provided additional information.for the .......... <br />Commission to make a recommendation either in favor or opposition to the <br />apphcation. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />The Council has the option of approving the rezoning as originally proposed <br />or selecting a rezoning based on the development scenarios prepared by staff. <br />Should the Council decide to approve the land use amendment and rezoning, <br />the following resolution, ordinance and findings are offered in support of that <br />determination: <br /> <br />Resolution No. 97- <br />findings: <br /> <br />amending the Land Use Plan based on the following <br /> <br />A) <br /> <br />B) <br /> <br />THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND <br />USEDESIGNATION IS ADJACENT TO OTHER PROPERTY WITH A LAND USE <br />DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COULD BE ACCESSED FROM <br />HIGHWAY 10, WHICH CAN PROVIDE FOR THE ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION <br />NEEDS REQUIRED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. <br /> <br />THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUATION OF WELL <br />DESIGNED EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY <br />TO THE COMMUNITY. <br /> <br />f:\shrdoc\planning\scott\zc97-3cc.doc <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.