Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hartley stated that the project does not consume all of the tax <br />increment revenue that will be coming in; Mr. Muller has plans to double <br />the shopping center ~ize in one year which will double the amount of <br />incoming tax increment; funds for traffic lights will be there when Mn/DoT <br />permits installation of them. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that he wants to make sure revenue is set aside <br />for traffic control lighting of some type. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that $131,000 is being borrowed and the project will <br />consume $113,000; there will be sufficient funds for traffic control. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember DeLuca to adopt <br />Resolution 987-149 accepting bids and awarding contract for Rum River Plaza <br />Site Improvement Project 487-22 and to designate a portion of the revenues <br />to be used for future traffic control lighting. (Please refer to <br />r e s o 1 u t i o n f i 1 e f o r R e s o 1 u t i o n # 8 7 - 1 4 9 ) . <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />COUNCIL BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #]0: Adopt Ordinance Amendin~ Chapter ]70.0] Of The City Code <br /> (Zonin~ Cha~ter): <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that the amendments include eliminating fencing <br />requirements for drainage ponds, requiring blacktop or concrete surfacing <br />for all off-street parking and requiring certified site plans for all <br />commercial and industrial proposals. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox expressed concern that the surfacing amendment would <br />place undue hardship on businesses having heavy equipment that would <br />deteriorate that required surfacing in a short period of time. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that the amendment is not changing surfacing <br />requirements but rather removing the ambiguity of 'durable and dustless'. <br /> <br />Council tabled this case in order to allow more time for reviewing the <br />proposed amendments. Refer to page 12 for further action. <br /> <br />Case ~1!: P~blic Works Site (R audio Prooerty); <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that the Road and Bridge Committee has discussed with <br />Mr. Raudio the acquisition of property near Pine View Estates for a public <br />works site. It is the position of the committee that the value of the <br />present public works site is $50,000; the value of property in the vicinity <br />of Pine View Estates is $5,000/acre; there are a number of options for 10 <br />acre parcels within that Raudio property. Mr. Raudio is willing to sell at <br />$5,000/acre on the condition that some of the soils can be removed by the <br />present owner. <br /> <br />Mr. Raudio suggested that the sale of the existing public works site go <br /> City Council/June 30, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />