Agenda - Council - 08/27/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

my comments refer to issueslthat should he addressed by your Critical Area Plan. ).will address each zoning change request separately. 1. Zoning change from Industrial to Residential: ~. , ~.;:': . · This zoning change appears consistent with the general intent of the Critical Area Designation provided 'that the R-] district lot isize or development densities will not cause Premature expansion of metro- · politan urban services' and that development will. comply with adequate on-site sewage di~posa! system regulations. 'The current standard during the inter.ira period is a 5 acre minimum lot size..Your current 2.5 acre lot size standard is not consistent. Your'plan may, however, try to make a case for adjusting the 5'acre'standard. It is our general" m opinion that the .current industrial zoning is inconsistent with the general use guideline for the rural open space 'district.' .i';~ . 2. Zoning change fr~ IndUstrial to Buslness/Con~nerclal: :', .',:~ ~ .' Both zoning classifications appear t(~ us to be -inconsistent with the. i, · general use guidelines for this district and 'the Critical Areal Even though only a small corner of this zoning is actually within the Critic. al Area, it is felt that the size of the proposedFdevelopment n~y sub- stantially impact the River Corridor in this area. It is our opinion '. ithat con~nercial develop~nt more properly..~..'belongs within or imn6diate- ' ly adjacent to available urban ~ervices and'other development~ of its type.. It appears that the strip.highway, co~nercial development occur-' " ring 'in Ramsey-is a significant issue to be faced in your planning ~.: 'program."' The lack of' central :~sev~er and water service;' problems with -,. · - :".'- access .t, orla[id"from?T.H-'l-"lO, an]d:the inconsistency of. neighboring low '~_ · :. .... ... density reside~tial Use with-con~en6,ial.,development..all:appear robe' m ~, ,' 'I.''' significant issues affecting this 'propoSall,'].:!li.":.':-'i.~.Fi]--y~i~:.~';"~ ~ :: .- .]'. ; -; .. ' 3. Zoning change from Resident~a'l to Business/Commercial:" :. .This 'Change, in our estimation, is clearly a Step in the' wrong direction, ,. 'The low densitY lresidential zoning is in p.lace because it is probably ", the most proper rise of the land except for agricultural uses. Allowing co~ercial development to further expand along T.H. 10 in'an agricul-: ,' tural area appears to be inconsistent with Critical &rea guidelines. : , . ...... . : .... .: L' ]:-'.%~':" .... ".~.,,:'.." In general, even thOUgh part of Alpaca Estate~ lies. dut~Si~le' th6~'C'r~t~ical' :.::: '..:.'~' Are~, we feel the development of commercial uses'along T,H, 10 would cause : :' .:'. ". the premature e.xpansion of urban services (sewers and water:and p. olice and ': .... fire protection)'and continued .transportation problems'a-long T.H~' 10 and would' be a generally, inconSistent-use of lands 'adjacent to'low density residential or : .. agricultural, areas.- · This. inconsistency, is 'being demonstrated in Dickensons ,~' :-'- ': .':.' i" ':-~ ':..: '...~:' -':~ .:->"'r.:~r:" :.:'"i.:: '- ~.:.~:: i: :" '""--i" ~'::.: '-~;' ';'i-' .!.':~" ":' :i .:. ,-:..." :: -' As I stated previously,' some ~of these conrnents.'overstep 'oUr review authori- ty~' I.hope you take these as 'butside observations-of your co.nmunity development". : .~' '.sitUation.' At this point :lin time ;I feel .,the approval, of this .rezoning is-.~ - ,. -' ' .' '" ' ',' ~ .' : ':',?'-',' _~ :T~'...- 'iL~ ,:- -'. -i-: ~-": ~.~e' '-~.',. '- ;~-.'-~':- ..' ."'-'