Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Dehen asked if the controversial events such as motocross and demolition derby <br />were limited if Mayor Gamec would still feel that this is not in the best interest of the City. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he would still not support it, but noted that he has attended snowmobile <br />racing at Canterbury Downs and owns a cabin in the Brainerd area, so does have a concern about <br />the noise the events would generate. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated that this issue has generated more citizen input than any other case <br />that she has been involved with since she been a Councilmember. She stated that she agrees with <br />Mayor Gamec that this is a fine business, but this is a bad location for it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that he appreciates all the professional opinions that have been <br />given on this application and feels that one thing stood out. He stated that the report stated that <br />this proposed activity is not something outside the realm of the way the property is zoned. He <br />stated that he appreciates Mr. Gruber's willingness to go along with a trial permit, which he <br />thinks is a great plan because it gives a chance to see what impact, if any, this will have and also <br />what value it can bring to the community. He stated that he would support a one-year trial <br />period for this application. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated that he had received a lot of phone calls on both sides of this issue <br />and agrees with Councilmember Look that he could also support a one year trial period for this <br />application. He stated that he wanted to clarify that the application was for snowboarding <br />events, not snowmobiling as mentioned by Mayor Gamec. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated that she is not opposed to the activities, but does not think this <br />is the right location for them. She stated that in addition to the issues surrounding the possible <br />environmental and noise impacts, she feels the land use issue is equally important in looking at <br />this proposal. She stated that she does not feel this land use makes sense in conjunction with <br />what the city has done in the Ramsey Town Center area. She stated that she is not convinced <br />that allowing this for a one year trial period will get the City where it needs to be and she thinks <br />that the City Council will be right back in the same place next year. She stated that regarding <br />possible noise issues, she is also not convinced that decibel measurement is the right way to <br />approach the noise in this situation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that he had a question for the City Attorney on whether there were <br />any ramifications of allowing an interim use permit and the applicant having some reliance on it <br />being granted in the future. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich read from the proposed resolution: Number 5 - "Any improvements, <br />including financial investment, the Permittee may make in reliance on this IUP SHALL NOT be <br />considered as factors by the City at such time when the Permittee applies for a permanent <br />amended CUP, and/or extension of the IUP." He stated that he feels this is an important fact to <br />communicate with the applicant that any money he spends will not be considered by the City <br />Council for any future Council decision. <br /> <br />City Council / December 11, 2007 <br />Page 9 of 25 <br />