My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.10. 7.11. 7.12. SR 06-19-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
06-19-1995
>
7.10. 7.11. 7.12. SR 06-19-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2008 4:20:48 PM
Creation date
10/27/2008 4:20:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
6/26/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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 Planning Commission Page 2 <br />May 23, 1995 <br />• Letter from Sherburne County Highway Department <br />• Proposed development plans <br />• • Minutes from the Park and Recreation Commission meetings <br />• Map illustrating possible trail corridors <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />The comprehensive plan amendment is necessary to expand the existing <br />urban service boundary. Presently, the urban service boundary is consistent <br />with the zoning line, which essentially bisects the subject property in and <br />east-west direction. Approximately one-half of the proposed development is <br />outside the urban service area, while the southerly half is within the current <br />urban service area. (See attached map) <br />At the time public utilities were extended north and west to serve both <br />Meadowvale Elementary School and eventually Meadowvale Heights, the <br />entire system was designed to serve all of the subject property. This was <br />done in anticipation of urban development occurring in a northerly direction <br />up to Ridgewood 2nd and 3rd Addition. With the existing homes and 2-1/2 <br />acre lots in the Ridgewood Addition, the logical urban service boundary <br />appeared to be the south limits of Ridgewood or the northerly limits of the <br />proposed development. <br />• Staff believes the request to expand the urban service boundary is a <br />reasonable request and fits within the guidelines of the current <br />comprehensive plan to expand urban services. This request is coming at the <br />time of a development proposal and is not being requested to allow "leap frog" <br />development to occur. Furthermore, the expansion would be in keeping with <br />the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and be a logical extension of <br />the urban service area. <br />It should also be pointed out that the Steering Committee at a previous <br />meeting to discuss the urban service area, recommended including the <br />subject property within the urban service area. <br />Rezoning <br />The second application for the Planning Commission to consider is the <br />rezoning from the Rla designation which requires a minimum 2-1/2 acre lot, <br />to the proposed Rlc which allows minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet. <br />The applicant's request to rezone the property to Rlc would be an extension <br />of the current Rlc designation immediately to the south and west. Once <br />again, this rezoning request to a more dense zoning classification would be <br />• <br />s:planning:pc:P96-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.