08-25-1992 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Planning Commission Minutes Augllst 25, 1992 Page 12 f. The issue of who pays for the extension of utilities to this site. g. Because there are so many questions and so much at stake with project, Mr. Johnson requested that the City mandate that an is conducted. Finally, Mr. Johnson stated that he felt the should deny project. this EIS City Bill Jones, 11763 194th Avenue NW, questioned what became of the studies the City had conducted on how the City should build up their business district? He felt that all of the effort and money used in these plans should be put to use in planning this development. Mr. Jones continued that the City has a vacant mall right now and it did not make sense to allow a new development to go in when the existing developments can not be filled. Mr. Jones was additionally concerned with the environmental impacts of this development and he felt that the property was too small to accommodate this size of a development. steve Rohlf stated that several studies have been conducted including the Focus Area studies, the Government Design Team, and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Rohlf stated that these are not stagnant documents but are used on an ongoing basis. These documents were referenced when the property was originally rezoned. Roger Scherer of the Elk River Mall stated that the "but should be used in order to determine what the developer for. He felt that if the water tower is not needed, "but development, the developer should pay for this. He further traffic is already congested on School street and that the traffic created by this development would unmanageable. for" test should pay for" the stated the additional Gary Santwire stated that there are a number of questions left unanswered with this proposed development and that the preliminary plat, conditional use permit or other approvals should not be granted until all of the questions are answered. Wes Ensrud, 19351 King Circle, stated that the City should look to other cities with these types of commercial developments as examples of the location of retail uses and their proximity to schools. Melinda Gains, 19418 Holt street, was concerned with the affects that this development would have on wildlife in the area. Ms. Gains stated that with the recent clear cutting of wooded areas in the vicinity, she has noted a substantial decline in the wildlife near their property. Ms. Gains also questioned the affect of the new water tower on properties currently serviced by wells. Terry Maurer, City Engineer, addressed this question stating that the proposed water tower would most likely be located on the east side of Highway 169, northeast of Hillside Estates Addition. Mr. Maurer stated that generally City wells are deeper and use a different aquifer, therefore, no affect on residential wells should be felt.