Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Strommen stated the other scenario is to deny them all, which means the <br />property owner to the north holds the key to all of this. She has the same concern as <br />Councilmember Jeffrey about County Road #5; however, her issue is that if they basically say <br />they will deny anything until that last property owner is ready to develop did they just raise the <br />price of that land. That is why she voted to approve the preliminary plat in the first place; it is <br />not right to say one property owner holds the key and raise the price ofthat property. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec concurred. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated he disagrees that the Council is upping the ante to the value of the <br />other property. When these properties are purchased this information presumably can be figured <br />out with the County. There is a plan out there that the County wants to reduce access onto <br />Highway 5, an,d the developers of these properties are buying this property understanding that. It <br />is not like they are coming in not knowing this is a challenged piece of property. He disagrees <br />with some of this that the City needs to figure out all of these problems. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec pointed out these properties have access already. <br /> <br />Mr. Boe stated there are a total of six driveways. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated six driveways onto County Road #5 is not the safest condition, and <br />he thinks the County is clear on safety in their letter. He knows that the church is trying to sell to <br />a developer, Mr. Boe is trying to develop, and the property in the middle is planning to develop. <br />They are lacking communication. The goal of the City is to get the three players to the table and <br />work it out. He believes that granting a temporary access is an absolute waste of money when <br />they should be getting the players to the table. It appears as though everyone has the same goal <br />of development, there just has not been communication yet. <br /> <br />Mr. Boe stated he talks to all of the property owners often; they want to develop, it's just when <br />they want to develop. He can offer them some creative plans to develop their property for them <br />and they could go in jointly, but now the church says they want to develop and Derwood wants <br />to develop. They have to move on it, and he would think if this starts they would move, and if it <br />is approved they would eliminate one of the driveways right away. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec noted if this development is approved, access onto County Road #5 with the <br />others could be denied because they would have access by tying into this and going out to <br />County Road #5. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines indicated the County has said if this access is granted it is temporary, <br />and if there is another way to access the property they do not have to feel obligated to give <br />access off of County Road #5. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec commented that they have talked about getting these property owners together for <br />a year. <br /> <br />City Council / June 26, 2007 <br />Page 19 of 38 <br />