My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-12-1982 CC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Minutes
>
City Council 1974 - Present
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
07-12-1982 CC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:34:49 AM
Creation date
4/19/2005 2:34:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
CCM
date
7/12/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />July 12. 1982 <br />Page Four <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt the City Council should give the Barthel de- <br />velopers some indication of their intent of approval of their proposed site plan <br />and a conditional use permit. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the City Council could give a conditional ap- <br />proval of the proposed site plan and an indication of approval of the conditional <br />use permit when all of the documents necessary are submitted and the public improve, <br />ments are addressed. The City Administrator further indicated that he has been in <br />contact with the Minnesota Highway Department regarding access on to Highway 169 from <br />the PUD and further indicated that a request for access must come from the property <br />owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Jim LaRock indicated that if the City cannot obtain access on to Highway 169, the <br />City Council should consider a service road along Highway 169 for the flow of traffic <br />from School Street through the planned unit development to Main Street. Councilman <br />Toth indicated that the nursing home is planning construction and that a service road <br />would not be able to be completed from School Street to Main Street. General discus- <br />sion was carried on regarding a major street improvement through the planned unit <br />development unit. <br /> <br />Mr. Nick Olson, representative of the East Side Citizens, indicated that the East <br />Side Citizens were in favor of the commercial development and approved of the pro- <br />posed buffer zone between the planned unit development and the residential area. <br /> <br />Mr. Gary Santwire indicated that twelve conditions must be met for approval of the <br />conditional use permit and the planned unit development preliminary plat and further <br />questioned how many of those conditions have been met by the Barthel planned unit <br />development. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that of the six conditions for a conditional use <br />permit, approximately three have been satisfied, and further indicated that more <br />documents must be submitted in order to satisfy all of the conditions. The City Ad- <br />ministrator reviewed the six standards required for a conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Joe Flaherty indicated that he was in favor of the proposed development along <br />Highway 169. Mr. Flaherty indicated that in the past 63 years, there have not been <br />any new buildings constructed in the downtown area and that all new development has <br />been done on the other side of the tracks. Mr. Flaherty indicacted that it is his <br />feelings that that is the only direction the City can grow. Mr. Flaherty further <br />indicated that it is his understanding that the issuance of industrial revenue bonds <br />does not cost the City and does. not take away from the integrity of the City. Mr. <br />Flaherty indicated that it is his information that most of the progressive City's <br />are using industrial revenue bonds to promote development and labor development as <br />well. ~ <br /> <br />Mr.Les Anderson questioned the proposed parcels F and G as part of the long range <br />plan with regard to their proposed detachment from the main shopping facility. It <br />was explained that parcel F is proposed for a free~standing building of atennant <br />type that would require their business to be located away from the main shopping <br />facility and it was further explained that parcel G could possibly be linked to the <br />main shopping facility. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.