07-05-1983 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes July 5, 1983 Page Three Planned Unit Development, ParcelD was identified as approximately 67 units of townhousing to serve as a buffer between the single family residents on the west side of the PUD and the proposed commercial center, and Parcel F was pro- posed to contain a 45,000 square foot retail building with a single tenant. The City Administrator further indicated that the developers have expressed their concerns over the restrictions placed on Parcels D and F, and have proposed amendments to the restrictions which would allow for 150 units of housing on Parcel D, and that Parcel F, rather than a 45,000 square foot single tenant structure, lJe identified as available for C-l, C-2, and C-3 uses with the City retaining final site and building plans, review and approval. The City Administrator indicated that the change would allow for more flexibility and variety in the housing units for ParcelD,which would still be consistant with the City's R-3 zo e. The City Administrator further indicated that the City would require tha the westerly portion of Parcel D would range from single family housing to town homes. The City Administrator further indicated that the City would retain fina site approval of Parcel D as well as Parcel F. The City Administrator allow for more flexibi that the suggested Ian be consistant with the Councilmember Engstrom City Administrator ind of Parcels D and F, an requested. Mayor Hinkle questione City Administrator ind assessments would be p Councilmember Engstrom The City Administrator out-of-pocket expense improvement, and then cussion was carried on ments. The City Admin during the time of def Councilmember Gunkel i and Parcel F were not great deal of time was and phasing plans for go back through that s did not like the way t made. Councilmember G a Developer's Agreemen Developer's Agreement. the flexibility of Par indicated that the Cou Mayor Hinkle indicated regarding the building Unit Development, and it was time the City a the City of Elk River, Elk River would get a further indicated that on Parcel F the amendment would ity in the development of Parcel F, and further indicated uage regarding parcel F would require that the building City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan. questioned who would be developing Parcels D and F. The cated that there were no firm agreements for the development that is why the flexibility in Parcels D and F were the time limit on the deferrment of the assessment. The cated that it would be a self determining factor as the id at the time of the beginning of the development. expressed his concern of the deferrment of the assessments. indicated that with the MSA funding, it would not be an nd that the MSA funding could be used to finance the ould be replaced when the assessments were paid. Dis- regarding the interest rate for the deferrment of the assess- strator indicated that an 8% interest rate would be charged rrment. dicated that she ~elt the changes proposed for Parcel d andled properly. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that a spent by the City Council reviewing preliminary plats he PUD, and further indicated that any amendments should me process. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she e changes in the preliminary plat and phasing plan were nkel expressed her concern of the fact that there was not , and that the developers have had 8 months to sign a The City Administrator indicated that he did not believe el F would have a bad impact on the downtown, and further cil would have final approval. .,.-" that h~ felt Councilmember Gunkel had legitimate concerns of a road and a storm drainage area through the Planned he use of MSA funds. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that dress the storm sewer and storm drainage problems within and further indicated that the citizens of the City of uch larger assessment if the MSA road was not constructed