My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-29-1999 PC MIN - SPECIAL
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1990 - 1999
>
1999
>
03-29-1999 PC MIN - SPECIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:09 AM
Creation date
5/20/2005 2:10:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
3/29/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />. <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />March 29, 1999 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Councilmember Motin asked if the layout of the park was determined before the <br />BMX concept was considered. Steve explained that the mountain biking group <br />and the BMX group have been working together on the concept for a bike park. <br /> <br />Steve indicated that the Council will be updated as plans for the BMX bike track <br />move forward. <br /> <br />4. Consider 1998 PlanninG Department Annual Report <br /> <br />Scott Harlicker reviewed the highlights of the 1998 Planning Department annual <br />report. Council member Dietz questioned how the follow-up program was going <br />for conditional use permits. Steve Wensman stated that conformance with <br />landscaping requirements tends to be a problem. <br /> <br />Chair Cote expressed his concern regarding incomplete planning applications <br />that have been moving through the public hearing process. <br /> <br />Discussion followed regarding problems staff is experiencing with applications not <br />being complete. Councilmember Motin asked if the process could be <br />streamlined so that developers do not feel they are being asked to provide an <br />unreasonable amount of information. Terry Maurer indicated that the City's <br />requirements are not different from other cities and may in fact, be less strict. It <br />was noted that it appears the local developers are more likely to complain than <br />out of town developers who are used to the process in other cities. <br /> <br />Discussion followed regarding complaints that Councilmembers have received <br />from Dennis Chuba regarding his request to develop within the urban service <br />district without services being available. <br /> <br />Further discussion followed regarding incomplete applications and deadlines for <br />legal notices. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the City Council that staff enforce the application <br />requirement checklist and not to advertise public hearings until an application is <br />deemed complete. <br /> <br />5.1 . Future East Elk River Development <br /> <br />Tree Preservation: <br /> <br />Chair Cote noted the receipt of letters regarding tree preservation from Tim <br />Edgeton, Sherburne County Forest Resource Specialist; and, Dave Anderson, Park <br />and Recreation Commissioner. Chair Cote stated the Planning Commission has <br />discussed the need for a tree preservation ordinance. Commissioner Kuester <br />explained that trees that were to be preserved are destroyed by the grading for <br />development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thompson indicated that it is important to consider tree <br />replacement, as well. Often when developers attempt to preserve trees, the <br />trees die 2 or more years later because of construction damage. The <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.