11-22-1982 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes November 22, 1982 Page Seven the Planned Unit Development Agreement. Councilman Engstrom indicated that he felt the City Council should be able to stop and re-evaluate prior to the de- development of the next phase. Councilman Schuldt indicated that he did not have a problem with the requirement of a public hearing before each phase as there was no specific time table for the development of the PUD. Further discussion was carried on regarding the phasing of the project and the total concept. The City Administrator indicated that the concerns and comments of the City Coun- cil regarding requirement of a public hearing prior to the development of the next phase could be incorporated in the Planned Unit Development Agreement. COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR THE BARTHEL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH THE SIX CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED IN THE CITY AD- MINISTRATOR'S MEMO OF NOVMEBER 18, 1982, TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. COUNCIL- MAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. General discussion was carried on regarding the preliminary plat of the Barthel Planned Unit Development and the staff's proposed amendment to the preliminary plat. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT MOVED TO APPROVE THE BARTHEL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRE- LIMINARY PLAT WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMO TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1982. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. The City Administrator reviewed the Planned Unit Development Agreement with the City Council and the changes suggested by the City Council to be incorporated in the final draft of the agreement; specifically, the concern of the owner- occupied requirements for the townhouse units and that a public hearing must be held prior to the beginning of the development of each phase. Discussion was also carried on regarding the uses in the Planned Unit Development; specifically, type of restaurant allowable. Discussion was also carried on regarding security requirements and it was the consensus of the City Council that this requirement be softened at least at the beginning of the construction and development of the Planned Unit Development. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he took exception to some comments made by the local citizens at the public hearing. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt many of the comments were based on the fact that they just wanted the City of Elk River to remain status quo; not to let anything happen, including water, sewer and streets. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that the City of Elk River is not immune to problems anymore than any other city and that the City must address the prob- lems of water, sewer and streets, expansion and development. The City Administrator also reviewed the Developer's Agreement with the City Council. It was the consensus of the City Council to authorize the City Ad- ministrator to incorporate the Council's comments and recommendations in the