My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3. DRAFT PC MINUTES 11-24-2020
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2011-2020
>
2020
>
11-24-2020
>
3. DRAFT PC MINUTES 11-24-2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2020 11:03:27 AM
Creation date
11/20/2020 11:03:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
11/24/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Planning Commission Page 4 <br /> October 27,2020 <br /> ----------------------------- <br /> probably remove the house from the property. He stated their goal was to fix up <br /> enough of the property to keep the property respectful and allow her parents to <br /> move in in roughly 5-10 years. <br /> Commissioner Rydberg asked Mr. DeMars how much money they have put into the <br /> home to clean and fix up. <br /> Mr. DeMars indicated they have spent approximately$15,000 to start and are seeing <br /> another$10,000 to $15,000 for additional repairs. <br /> There being no one else to speak, Chair Larson-Vito closed the public hearing. <br /> Chair Larson-Vito stated in her mind there either needs to be the escrow or a time <br /> 7 <br /> limit. <br /> Commissioner Rydberg asked if the use is allowed today,why would it not be <br /> allowed in 5-10 years for another party to then request an extension of the IUP. He <br /> felt the intention of the $5,000 escrow seems to be excessive in this situation. <br /> Commissioner Ovall stated the city council had multiple meetings regarding this and <br /> explained there is a lot of history and nuances associated with the history of this <br /> property. He stated the council's recommendation of an IUP,while not perfect,was <br /> trying to make the best of a bad situation without burdening the buyer. He stated the <br /> property has two septic systems, two wells, two utility systems, and no building <br /> permits were pulled, but the city recognizes it as a single-family home. He stated <br /> their primary concern was to get the applicants through whatever it is,if they sell it <br /> or the use changes, the IUP goes away. <br /> Chair Larson-Vito stated her suggestion with the sunset in lieu of the $5,000 escrow <br /> <toavoilcd4, ,,*n up the money if their goal was not to sell the property. <br /> ssioner C)vall suggested the commission consider a letter of credit. <br /> ssioner Rydberg asked what the purpose of the $5000 escrow condition. <br /> Mr. Leeseberg stated based upon a discussion with the city attorney, the escrow will <br /> cover any legal fees incurred by the city to get the property back into compliance <br /> should it be abandoned, as an insurance policy of sorts for the city. He indicated <br /> staff discussed a timeline and felt this route was solving the problem and not kicking <br /> it down the road. <br /> Commissioner Thiel asked if the escrow could be used in conjunction with a timeline <br /> as a mechanism to convert the home back to a single family residence as that is the <br /> ultimate goal of the city, so the sooner they do it,the sooner they get their money <br /> back within a five year limit. <br /> Mr. Leeseberg stated they could add that as a condition. <br /> 111`41AWRE <br /> . . .. . . . . . . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.