Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes of August 13, 1996 <br /> <br />Council Business continued <br /> <br />Gunderman asked if the area near Hub Cap Warehouse is available. Mattila said this area <br />is included in the moratorium. Larson noted the Moore site which a single family home <br />occupies. Mattila said this site may accommodate COC, and currently the home is <br />considered a non-conforming use. <br /> <br />DeCoux said COC intents to create a job base and tax dollars for the City, and continued to <br />request an exemption. DeCoux asked if COC could make cosmetic improvements to the <br />Basic Industries building. Mattila said internal improvements do not require site plan <br />review and would be exempt from the moratorium. The moratorium would impact a <br />property if exterior walls were expanded. <br /> <br />Benke said the long range plan will state the wishes of the community and include <br />guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest. Discussions with the applicants should continue in <br />fairness to the property owners. The flfst step is to create an inventory of all property <br />owners and survey them of their interests and long term plans. This is key to visioning. <br /> <br />LeFevere said the Cadwallader proposal would be deemed denied, however, staff could <br />come before Council with an amendment. Benke said Council could direct staff to discuss <br />the issue with the Planning Commission. LeFevere said the Planning Commission has not <br />reviewed the moratorium. Williams firmly believes the Planning Commission be given <br />opportunity to review the moratorium. Samuelson asked if the Planning Commission could <br />review the moratorium before Council adoption. LeFevere's concern is the City would run <br />out of time concerning the 6O-day statutory limit for action on the Tom Thumb application. <br />Williams said the Planning Commission could review the ordinance on August 20. Benke <br />suggested Council adopt the ordinance and then make amendments after Planning <br />Commission review. LeFevere said that protecting the planning process is appropriate <br />although it may create hardships, and creating uncertainty for applicants is not helpful. <br />Homeowners should be on notice of possible rezoning. LeFevere feels if Council delayed <br />adoption, more proposals may come forward. To amend the moratorium, a formal public <br />hearing process or Planning Commission review is not required. <br /> <br />Motion by Williams, seconded by Benke, to GIVE A SECOND READING, ORDER <br />PUBLICATION, AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE PLACING A MORATORIUM <br />ON DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ON CERTAIN <br />PROPERTY WITHIN THE HIGHWAY 8 CORRIDOR; AND REFER ORDINANCE <br />TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Council requested staff to continue to work with COC and Cadwallader. <br /> <br />Economic Development Specialist Jill Hanson presented the RFP to solicit proposals from <br />interested flfms to complete a Hwy 8 Corridor Plan. The tirst phase would be a schematic <br />plan or vision for each sub-area, and more detailed plans involve the second phase. The <br />plans may be used to select developers for individual sites. A group of potential consultants <br />will be mailed the RFP in mid-August; submittal deadline will be early September. Key <br />criteria includes: specific and general experience with development plans, firm experience, <br />clarity and scope of work, costs, and references. <br /> <br />Specific parcels may vary as the study dedicates, but areas of major study are the northwest <br />quadrant, the pole yards, northern gateway, and Jones Lake Area. <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Highway 8 Moratorium <br />Report 96-182 <br />Ordinance 623 <br /> <br />RFP Highway 8 <br />Report 96-183 <br />