05-18-1992 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Elk River City Council Minutes May 18, 1992 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ALLOW THE STEEL ROOF TO REPLACED AT NADEAU'S CLOTHING CENTER AND ALSO REQUESTED COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE CITY'S EXISTING ORDINANCE ROOFS. COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE 4-0. BE REPAIRED OR THE PLANNING PERTAINING TO MOTION CARRIED 5.1. Discussion of Land Use between Highway 169 and Jackson Road North of School Street Pat Klaers stated that this issue was discussed by the City Council on 5/4/92. He stated that on 5/4/92, the City Council heard comments from local business owners regarding action taken by the Council on 4/6/92 which authorized a letter to be sent to Mr. Bill Dickenson indicating that the City would condemn his property in order to ensure the best development possible in the vicinity. He further stated that at the 5/4/92 City Council meeting, the local business owners requested the City Council to rescind the letter sent to Mr. Dickenson. Pat Klaers stated that staff is recommending that a letter be sent to Mr. Scott Ericson, developer of the project, clarifying the City's position on the project at this time. Roger Scherer indicated that the City Administrator is not addressing the condemnation issue. John Griese stated that the message the bus~ness owners are trying to convey to the Council is that the City should not help Mr. Dickenson any more than it helps anyone else. Gary Santwire questioned why the Council could not withdraw the letter and let the development process take its own course. Councilmember Kropuenske stated he did not feel it would benefit anybody to withdraw the letter and further that the development process will still move forward whether or not the letter is rescinded. Peter Beck, City Attorney, reiterated that the City has made no commitment to any project. Mr. Roy Friendshuh questioned whether the proposed utility improvements would affect his property. The City Administrator indicated that there has been a feasibility study presented for the area and that his property is not affected by the proposed utilities. After further discussion of this issue it was the consensus of the City Council not to rescind the 4/17/92 letter to Mr. Bill Dickenson, but that another letter be sent to Mr. Ericson clarifying the City's position that the City has not approved a development plan or proposal for the area, that the City does not anticipate providing financial assistance for any project in the vicinity and that the developer must go through the planning process for a development proposal.