My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (1 SET) 07-03-2017
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2017
>
07-03-2017
>
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (1 SET) 07-03-2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/29/2017 10:58:49 AM
Creation date
6/29/2017 10:58:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
7/3/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
City Council Minutes Page 5 <br /> June 19,2017 <br /> ----------------------------- <br /> enough progress has been made. He expressed concerns with Council approving the <br /> applications because nothing can be changed later without the application process <br /> being restarted again. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard stated he understands the application process is done <br /> and another application can come forward. He wanted the financial impacts for the <br /> city and the applicant to be understood by everyone. He asked what would happen <br /> financially, to the city and applicant,if both parties work out an alternative solution <br /> after approval is given. He noted these applications, for the city's benefit,have been <br /> delayed a few months and at what point does the city move forward with someone <br /> who wants to do a project when we can't make up our mind. He noted the street <br /> connections have changed since the project was first reviewed and questioned why. <br /> Mr. Leeseberg stated a new application would require public notices and review by <br /> the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission. He stated if the <br /> applications are continued,they will only come back to Council for review. <br /> Councilmember Wagner asked the applicant,who was in the audience,if he <br /> understood this discussion. He nodded yes. <br /> Councilmember Wagner stated she wants to allow business to do business. She <br /> stated if the plan had not come before the Council the way it did she would have said <br /> yes to the zone change so doesn't know why the Council wouldn't approve it now. <br /> She stated the redevelopment idea is good but questioned how long a business <br /> should be put on hold. <br /> Councilmember Olsen stated he would like to continue the discussions to July 17 <br /> because it seems cumbersome to go through the application process again. <br /> Councilmember Ovall stated he is confused of what the Master Plan is that hasn't be <br /> approved but,that being said, the Master Plan is for a redevelopment TIF District <br /> which would be accomplished no matter where the road is moved,whether to the <br /> north or south. He stated Ken Beaudry would be the best judge as to what would <br /> produce the best economic value for his property. He stated the city is not precluded <br /> from installing a storm water pond no matter where the road is located. He further <br /> noted another variable are the three unpurchased needed lots. He stated he talked to <br /> constituents located north of Proctor Avenue and he is not convinced the road in <br /> the middle of the development is the best route. He outlined his concerns with <br /> traffic and movement patterns on Proctor Avenue. He stated the city is rushing the <br /> process and the person to make the best judgment on this road/project is the <br /> applicant. He further stated he doesn't think approving this project will not stop the <br /> city from doing what will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Mayor Dietz made the following comments: <br /> UREJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.