04/14/93 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case 02: Intent of Improvement Project Petition. One of the items that came to light during the discussion of the AMSCO site plan was the fact that City policy ~requires site plan applicants to participate in possible future petitions for the improvement projects; specifically street improvements and the extension of municipal utilities. As requested by the EDC, I have discussed the intent of this policy with City Staff and they have indicated tha~ the reason behind this policy is to get the ball rolling, so to speak. This policy only requires the gpplicant to sign a petition in favor of completing a feasibility study to ascertain the cost of the improvement. They do not waive any of their rights to oppose a project in the future if they believe the cost is more than they wish to bear. Commissioner Oorecki indicated that he felt it is unfair to require someone to sign a petition in favor of something, especially a feasibility study, which is expensive to complete by the City and that the City completes many feasibility studies, some only in the effort to encourage people to do things they may :not do otherwise. It comes down to the government making decisions for the people rather than people making decisions on what they would like government to do. Councilmember Zimmerman interjected that the start of this policy was with the Planning and Zoning Commi. 'ssion many years ago. If the EDC would like to see it changed, they should make a recommendation to remove this condition from future site plan development agreements. Chairperson .'Wagner stated that he has mixed feelings, ff the costs are unknown, people may make decisions based upon incorrect information and when a petition originally went around his former neighborhood, he refused to sign the petition for the feasibility study. When the costs were known, he decided the cost was not a great deal and it was a good idea to pave the streets; a decision he Would not have come to without knowing the cost of the improvement. Motion by ,Commissioner Gorecki and seconded by Commissioner Fults to make a recommendation that this requirement be removed as a condition of site plan approval and that this recommendation and the EDC's discussion of this issue appear as a City Council case. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Wagner, Commissioners Fults, Gorecki, Greenberg, Nelson, Schroeder and Ullen. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Kent. Case 03: Rezoning of Property to R-1U. The City has received a request to develop properties located along St. Francis Boulevard N.W. With the limited expansion available to the current MUSA boundary and the appearance that the majority of tiffs ,p~,perty will not develop into a business zone as originally thought, but as single family urbanires~denfial, it may be a good time now to plan for the future and examine the possibility ofrezoning this property to R-1U Urban Residential. Currently, this is a point of discussion for the EDC as we should plan to make recommendations for possible rezonings of property thro,ughout the City to encourage development of either as commercial, residential or industrial property. Commissioner Fults indicated that the Anoka County Chamber of Commerce has met with the Highway commissioner and some Senators who were unaware of the requirements of Metropolitan Council for cities to receive expansions of their MUSA boundaries.. This may change in the future and expansions may be easier to come by. After further discussion, the EDC decided to table this issue and to schedule this case for the next agenda, or to conduct the next meeting as a workshop. Economic Development Commission / April 14, 1993 Page 3 of 4