Agenda - Council - 08/14/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

contingent on the City Staff Review Letter dated May 24, 2006. Finding No. 7 is likely the most important, which states "That the City Staff Review Letter, dated May 24, 2006, revised June 23, 2006, stated that any approvals should be contingent upon addressing the concerns of the Anoka County Highway Department." Mr. Goodrich advised that the Anoka County Highway Department weighed in on this, and in his opinion this would allow the Council to effect this preliminary plat due to the statements from Anoka County. He recommended the following amendment to finding No. 7: "That the City Staff Review Letter, dated May 24, 2006, revised June 23, 2006, stated that any approvals should be contingent upon addressing the concerns of the Anoka County Highway Department, w hich traffic safety concerns are addressed in an Ano County letter dat May 7 2007 and adopted herein as is fully set forth at t his point, and a co -- of letter is -- attached h -eretc - as Exhibit A. " — Mr. Goodrich advised he als -- recommends the deletion of finding no. 11. Councilmember Elvig inquired about proceeding from this point. Associate Planner Dalnes stated she believes if GAD's Prairie is denied Mr. Sagwold will come forth with a development that seeks access off the County Road. Council can take action on that as appropriate. Councilmember Strommen stated the other scenario is to deny them all, which means the property owner to the north holds the key to all of this. She has the same concern as Councilmember Jeffrey about County Road #5; however, her issue is that if they basically say they will deny anything until that last property owner is ready to develop did they just raise the price of that land. That is why she voted to approve the preliminary plat in the first place; it is not right to say one property owner holds the key and raise the price of that property. Mayor Gamec concurred. Councilmember Dehen stated he disagrees that the Council is upping the ante to the value of the other property. When these properties are purchased this information presumably can be figured out with the County. There is a plan out there that the County wants to. reduce access onto Highway 5, and the developers of these properties are buying this property understanding that. It is not like they are coming in not knowing this is a challenged piece of property. He disagrees with some of this that the City needs to figure out all of these problems. Mayor Gamec pointed out these properties have access already. Mr. Boe stated there are a total of six driveways. Councilmember Look stated six driveways onto County Road #5 is not the safest condition, and he thinks the County is clear on safety in their letter. He. knows that the church is trying to sell to a developer, Mr. Boe is trying to develop, and the property in the middle is planning to develop. They are lacking communication. The goal of the —169—