4.1. SR 03-31-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SPECLiL MEETING OF THE ELK RI~rER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1996 MembeJ~ Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Mayor Duifsman, Councilmembers Dietz, Scheel, Farber, and Holmgren None Pat Klaers, City Administrator;, Terry Maurer, City Engineer;, Steve Aah, City Planner, Peter Beck, City Attorney; Lori Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Call Meetinq To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the special meeting of the Elk River City Council was called to order at 5 p.m. by Mayor Duitsman. It was the consensus of the City Council that the agenda was acceptable as presented. J_oint Meetinq with the Plannin,q Commission The following members of the Planning Commission were present: Chair Tom Dillon, Commissioners Kuester, Sullivan-Slocum, Thompson, Minton, and Anderson ICommissioner Tacheny was out of town on vacation). Also present were the following Chamber of Commerce Representatives: President Dennis Chuba, Lynn Caswell, and Charlie Houle. The City Administrator distributed an article from the August, 1988 Public Mana.a, ement magazine entitled Ways to Selectively Influence Growth. It was suggested that the most relevant information in this article reviews the following methods or techniques for managing growth: the extension of municipal utilities, the availability of land, and the zoning ordinance/map. It was also noted that, from the tone of this adicle, it appears that the City of Decatur, Georgia has had problems in the past with developers. The City Planner reviewed his memo on growth management and specifically discussed residential and commercial/industrial development in the urban district of the city prior to municipal utilities being available. The Planning Commission Chair stated that the Planning Commission had discussed this topic in a worksession. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that, in the residential zone prior to utilities, the development guideline should be a 10 acre minimum. It was noted that the Planning Commission considered overlay plats and a 2-1/2 acre development pattern, but rejected this approach based on the belief that if this residential development pattern took place then utilities would never be extended into that area or beyond.