My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-2019 CCM
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Minutes
>
City Council 1974 - Present
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
02-19-2019 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2019 8:55:27 AM
Creation date
3/5/2019 8:54:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
CCM
date
2/19/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
City Council Minutes Page 9 <br />February, 19, 2019 <br />Mayor Dietz asked Council if they want to consider raising the utility fee and <br />eliminating the impact fee. <br />It was noted the utility fee would have to be raised by 10% to offset the impact fee. <br />Council consensus was to eliminate the impact fee and raise the utility fee starting <br />January 1, 2020. <br />Mr. Beck noted Council could phase in the impact fee. <br />9.4 Institutional Uses in Downtown District <br />Mr. Leeseberg presented the staff report on Planning Manager Zack Carlton's behalf. <br />Mr. Beck stated if Council defines Residential Facility then they could exclude them <br />from institutional uses versus including residential facilities under the definition of <br />Institutional Uses. <br />Councilmembet Westgaard stated the current ordinance definitions need to be <br />expanded into more detail specific types of uses in order to guide them better. <br />Councilmember Ovall stated this is turning into a larger issue and should be sent <br />back to Planning Commission for more detailed review. <br />Mr. Beck stated this is a consistently evolving use type and he explained how, <br />historically, churches and schools were located in neighborhoods at one time because <br />people used to walk to them. He further commented some cities have an institutional <br />zoning district. <br />Mr. Leeseberg asked Council their intentions for the downtown district. He <br />questioned if they want to see churches/schools in downtown, separation of <br />definitions for the different types of facilities (schools versus churches, or medical), <br />and get rid of institutional uses. <br />Council concurred they would like to break the definitions down versus lumping <br />them into one. <br />Councihnember Wagner expressed concerns with segmenting and focusing on the <br />institutional use without considering the larger vision referencing the Council - <br />adopted Mississippi Connections Plan and its focus on redevelopment. She would <br />like a plan of what a project would actually look like. She questioned the goal for the <br />downtown as a whole, noting the current plan calls for a sustainable downtown <br />district with restaurants and varying draws for people to spend money. <br />Councilmember Westgaard agreed but noted the Council needs to redefine <br />institutional uses and then review how the new definitions apply to each zoning <br />district within our city. <br />PB11aFI BI <br />MATURE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.