Loading...
07-25-1983 CC MIN REGULAR WEEKLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY JULY 25, 1983 AND JOINT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL AND THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ITEM 3 OF THE JULY 25, 1983 AGENDA Members Present: Mayor Hinkle, Councilmembers Engstrom, Duitsman, Schuldt, and Gunkel. Members Absent: None Planning Commission Members Present: Commissioners Tracy, Pearce, Hartman, Tralle, Oster, and Ward Planning Commission Members Absent: Commissioner Wille 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hinkle. 2. Agenda COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 25, 1983, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Mayor Hinkle opened the joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Barthel/Dietz PUD Amendment to Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit/Public Hearing. Mr. Dave Sellergren, Attorney for the City, indicated that the public hearing was in accordance with Section 900.ll2c of the City Zoning Ordinance regarding a pro- posed modification of the Barthel/Dietz Planned Unit Development Plan. Mr. Sellergren further indicated that the decision regarding the proposed plan should focus on the land use question, and that the Improvement Project, the obtaining of the necessary easements and the waiver of objection to assessments are irreve- land to the issue. Mr. Sellergren indicated that the proposed changes in Parcel D and Parcel F were the only issues to be considered at the public hearing. The City Administrator indicated that the proposed changes in Parcel D and Parcel F were requested by the developers to allow some flexibility in the development of those two parcels. The City Administrator indicated that Parcel F as originally planned was for one tenant in a structure of approximately 40,000 square feet, and that the proposed change is to allow for the uses allowable in a C-l, C-2, or C-3 zone. The City Administrator indicated that the language included in the plan for Parcel F would specify that the use would be consistent with the Down- town Redevelopment Plan. Mayor Hinkle opened the Public Hearing. Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Two Mr. John Pearce, Planning Commission member, questioned the square footage of the commercial space in Parcel F, and it's consistency with the City Planner's proposed development plan for the City. The City Administrator indicated that the plan was consistent with the City's Redevelopment Plan, and further indicated that the proposed use of Parcel F would come back to the City Council for a final approval. Discussion was carried on between the Planning Commission, the City Council and the City's Attorney, regarding the landscaping and buffering of Parcel F. The City's Attorney indicated that the buffering and landscaping would be as proposed in the original concept of the PUD. COMMISSIONERTRALLEMOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE LANGUAGE CHANGE FOR PARCEL F IN THE PROPOSED DIETZ/BARTHEL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS FOLLOWS: RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS PERMITTED IN THE C-l, C~2, C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL BE PERMITTED,BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED USES AND BUILDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ALL OTHER PLANS AND ORDINANCES REFERRED TO IN SECTION 2 HEREOF. THE FOLLOWING USES SHALL BE PROHIBITED: PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER OFFICE USES; TAVERNS; TRUCK STOPS; NEW OR USED CAR OR IMPLEMENT SALES; AUTO REPAIR SHOPS; ENCLOSED STORAGE AND WARE- HOUSING; PUBLIC GARAGE; DRIVE-IN THEATERS; OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION CEN- TERS; LIQUOR STORE AND TRUCK TERMINAL. NO BUILDING SHALL EXCEED 35 FEET IN HEIGHT. ACCESS TO PARCEL F SHALL BE VIA PRIVATE DRIVES APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. DOCUMENTS TO PERMANENTLY ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID PRIVATE DRIVES SHALL BE RECEIVED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND SHALL BE RECORDED. THE PRIVATE DRIVES MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE OCCUPANCY OF PARCEL F. PARKING SPACES ON PARCELF.SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY.CITY ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF SITE AND BUILDING PLANS FOR THIS PARCEL. NO BUILDING SHALL BE OCCUPIED UNTIL THE PARKING FACILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. COM- MISSIONER OSTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. Councilmember Engstrom indicated his concern that the language and use of Parcel F to be consistent with the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Councilmember Engstrom indicated that Parcel F could also contain a number of small shops which would not be consistent with the downtown plan. The City Administrator indicated that the City Council would have to approve the final plan for Parcel F, and they would then have the opportunity to again review the use of Parcel F. Commissioner Pearce indicated that he felt the 45,000 square feet proposed for Parcel F does exceed the total square footage that the City Planner, Zack Johnson has recommended, and therefore is in excess of the total plan for the City of Elk River. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION FOR THE CHANGE IN PARCEL F OF THE BARTHEL/DIETZ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS STATED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. The City Administrator indicated that the second change in the Barthel/Dietz development requested by the developer was Parcel D. The City Administrator indicated that ParcelD consisted of approximately 12.8 acres, and that the original proposal consisted of 67 units. The City Administrator indicated that the developers want more flexibility in the development of Parcel D, and have asked for what is consistent with the R-3 Zoning Ordinance of approximately 128 units or 12 units per acre. The City Administrator indicated that the concept ~ Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Three proposed by the developers contained 4 unit buildings, quads or quadominimums, and six twelve unit apartment buildings, two story in height. The City Admin- istrator indicated that Zack Johnson, the City Planner had concerns regarding the length of the private driveway, and further indicated that Mr. Johnson had indicated that there are a number of ways to place the approximate 128 units in the 12.8 acres. The City Administrator indicated that 128 units would not be too dense for the size of Parcel D. The City Administrator indicated that it is recommended that the City Council allow approximately 128 units for Parcel D, and further indicated that the City Council would give final approval to the final plans of Parcel D. The City Administrator indicated that there could be a mixture of townhouses, quads, apartment buildings with the accepted maximum density. The City Administrator indicated that the buffering and the low den- sity housing would be considered for the westerly portion of Parcel D. Mr. Nick Olson indicated that the residents in his area believe that anything in the development is better than the pit that is currently there, and further indicated that the people in the neighborhood are happy with what has happened so far regarding School Street. Mr. Nick Olson indicated that the citizens in the area are not opposed to the development of the PUD, but are concerned with the phasing, the road plans for Parcel D, the burm, and the possibility of saving the trees along the divider between the residential property and Parcel D. Mr. Mike O'Brien expressed his concern of the location of the road in the proposed concept of Parcel D. Mr. Mike O'Brien also questioned who would do the maintenance of the private road in Parcel D. The City Administrator indicated that there would be Homeowners Agreements that would address,the maintenance of the roads in the development as well as the green spaces. Discussion was carried on regarding the requirements for a park or playground area. Mr. Gary Santwire questioned the irrelevancy of the contingencies to the Improve- ment Project as the public hearing was a contingency of the project. Mr. Dave Sellergren, Attorney for the City of Elk River, indicated that the decision in process is simply the land use question, and not a part of the contingencies of the Improvement Project. Discussion was carried on regarding the buffering of Parcel D with the residential area, and the height of the apartment buildings proposed for Parcel D. Discussion was also carried on regarding the renaming of the street in the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Rick Breezee indicated that the City Couhcil and Planning Commission are con- sidering the density change and the land use for Parcel D, at this time, and that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing regarding the exact layout of Parcel D, when development was to occur. Gary Santwire questioned the possibility of the improvements installed in the Planned Unit Development before a Developer's Agreement would be signed. Mr. Dave Sellergren, Attorney for the City of Elk River, indicated that there was a possibility of the improvements being installed before a Developer's Agreement was signed. Discussion was carried on regarding the density allowed in an R-2 and an R-3 zone. Further discussion was carried on regarding the private drive through Parcel D, and the possibility that it may be designed differently than proposed on the concept plan submitted. Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Four Commissioner Hartman questioned the size of Parcel D. The City Administrator indicated that the total site is 12.8 acres less easements, to allow for approximately 10 acres of developable land. Discussion was carried on regarding the consideration of easements in the consideration of the total acreage for a plat. Mr. Rick Breezee, the City's Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that easements can be computed in the total acreage of a plat. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PARCEL D BE ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH THE DENSITY CONSISTENT WITH THE R-J ZONE CLASS- IFICATION PERMITTING APPROXIMATELY 128 UNITS RANGING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL DWELLINGS UP TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AS PROPOSED IN THE CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER TRALLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 0-6. Commissioner Oster expressed his concern of the private driveway in the proposed concept plan. Commissioner Ward expressed his concern of the garages, the private road, the easements, and the size of the burm. Discussion was carried on regarding the specific site plan, and the proposed units along the westerly portion of Parcel D. Commissioner T alle indicated that the specific concerns of Commissioner Ward could be addre sed at the public hearing of the Planning Commission when Parcel D was presente for final review. '- Discussion was carried on regarding the phasing of the project, and the development on the western border of Parcel D. COMMISSIONER H TMAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CHANGES IN PARCEL D AS STATED IN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ATED JULY 22, 1983. COMMISSIONER WARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 1-5. COMMISSIONERS TRALLE, HARTMAN, PEARCE, TRACY AND WARD OPPOSED. Further discussion was carried on regarding the language of the types of housing units allowed in Parcel D, the number of units allowed and the development of the parcel with regard to direction west to east. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CHANGES IN PHASE 2 OF THE BARTHEL/DIETZ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PARCEL D AS FOLLOWS: HOUSING UNITS ALLOWED PURSUANT TO R-J ZONING BUT NOT TO EXCEED 128 HOUSING UNITS. ALL HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE SITUATED PROXIMATELY TO THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, TOWNHOUSES, DUPLEXES OR FOUR-PLEXES.AND NO BUILDING SHALL CONTAIN MORE THAN 12 HOUSING UNITS. NO BUILDING ON PARCEL D SHALL EXCEED 45 FEET IN HEIGHT. ACCESS TO PARCEL D SHALL BE VIA PARCEL K AND PRIVATE DRIVES APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. DOCUMENTS TO PERMANENTLY ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID PRIVATE DRIVES SHALL BE RECEIVED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND SHALL BE RECORDED. THE PRIVATE DRIVES MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OF PARCEL D. EACH HOUSING UNIT IN PARCEL D SHALL HAVE ONE ENCLOSED PARKING SPACE AND ONE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. NO BUILDING ON PARCEL D SHALL BE OCCUPIED UNTIL THE PARKING FACILITIES SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. ANY MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON PARCEL D WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE EASTERLY MOST PORTION OF PARCEL D AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE ROAD RUNNING THROUGH THE BARTHEL/DIETZ PUD. PARCEL D Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Five SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN SUCH A FASHION THAT EITHER THE ENTIRE LOW DENSITY STRIP ON THE WESTERN BORDER OF PARCEL D BE CONSTRUCTED, OR IN THE EVENT THAT THE PARCEL IS PHASED, THAT THE ENTIRE PHASE FROM WEST TO EAST BE CONSTRUCTED RATHER THAN SIMPLY HAVING APARTMENT BUILDINGS BEING CONSTRUCTED FIRST, AND THE LOWER DENSITY DWELLINGS BE CONSTRUCTED LATER ON IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. COMMISSIONER TRALLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-1. COMMISSIONER WARD OPPOSED. I Discussion was carried on regarding the con~inuous road along the westerly edge I as proposed in the concept plan of Parcel D'I COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND A ICHANGE IN THE CONTINUOUS ROAD ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE AS PROPOSED IN THE CONCEP] PLAN OF PARCEL D. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION P1SSED 4~0. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE REFERENCE TO GATES AVENUE IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE REFERENCED AS PARCEL K IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED.4-0. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE CHANGES IN PHASE 2 OF THE BARTHEL/DIETZ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PARCEL D AS STATED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. Counci1member Gunkel indicated that she wanted to address the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the Parcel D changes, as she wanted everyone to under- stand her position. Counci1member Gunkel's statement is as follows: "I know I stand alone on this, and I feel alone. I have often wondered if I'm wrong. I don't think I am. I have to live with myself and know that I did what I thought was right. My skepticism of the proper implementation and application of a PUD has not changed. I keep hearing statements about not setting a precedent, about not breaking or bending our own laws, and to do what is best for Elk River. I share those concerns. I am not trying to stand in the way of progress. I have read the PUD Ordinance so many times it is almost committed to memory. We must be careful to maintain the validity and integrity of our PUD Ordinance." "The City should not be in a position of compromising or making exceptions to establish procedures because the developers and landowners had an apparent break- down in communication. I find it interesting to note that on February 18, 1982, Mr. Larry Toth was questioning if Mr. Barthel could be held accountable for the western most buffering, if Barthel did not own or control that portion of the PUD. If he knew that, how could Mr. Dietz claim he just became aware of the fact that Barthel did not own and control this area of the PUD. Is this the political ploy being used when time is of essence? Admittedly, three or four years ago I was against any commercial development of this property. In conjunction with the commercial aspects, my primary concern as a neighboring resident was how it would be buffered f rom the adj oining neighborhoods. Through the process of awareness and involvement, I have changed my position." "As a Planning Commissioner, I voted against the Conditional Use Permit, I voted in favor of the preliminary plat. I was hoping I could approve the requested changes. In early spring, about 3~ years ago, Mr. Dietz presented his plans for the property. Do you remember the one major item that caused so much furor that prompted the organization of the east side concerned citizens? It was primarily Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Six the idea of a road running along the western most edge and the type of buffer housing. This posed a definite threat to the adjoining neighborhoods in the terms of traffic, noise, and litter. Many people spent countless hours trying to obtain an acceptable buffering plan. Finally, last November we thought we had that. Also, during all those discussions, it was stated that there would never be a road allowed along the western edge." "What we have before us tonight is a variation of this original plan. It's a scaled down roadway; it doesn't line up directly with existing neighborhood streets for future connections; it,is designed and intended only to move traffic thru the new housing, and it's being recommended that it be a private road. It would be much more acceptable if the low-density buffer housing was moved to the westernmost edge, and the road moved to flow between the low-density and higher density housing unit. I would also like it stipulated in'the Developer's Agreement that current dead-end neighborhood streets would not be opened up to move traffic into and out of the PUD area." "Our recently adopted policies on roads stipulated a minimum of 24' bituminous roads. While it allows for the establishment of new private roads, the intent was to allow these in rural areas where an individual is building a single house well off the beaten path. This City is well aware of the problems involving pri- vate roads. It would be a real compromise for me to officially give my approval because I don't think we are meeting the specified requirements of our ordinance in a straightforward manner. I've had numerous conversations with the City Admin- istrator, and I want to thank him for addressing my concerns as best he could, and for involving our City Planner, Zack Johnson." "From August through November of 1982, the Phasing Plan of the entire concept became a very 'critical tool that was used to obtain approval of the preliminary plat and it is a part of the conditional use permit. It came inDO play because of the objection to the proposed 105,000 sq. ft. of the main shopping center building. This much space far exceeded the projected needs of Elk River in and of itself without even taking into consideration existing and already approved new commercial area. This Phasing Plan was designed to have commercial and housing construction interact to justify each other. I was always veryileary that this Phasing Plan would be somewhat meaningless. In the 2 drafts of the thus-far unapproved Developer's Agreement, the stated Phasing Plan is somewhat different from the approved Phasing Plan. The difference is in allowing any or all housing as part of Phase I. Conceptually, that might be OK. However, to me that constitutes a change in the conditional use permit - a change from what the public heard approved at the public hearing. It bothers rue that this Phasing Plan is not being considered specifically tonight - especially with the varied housing types involved." "I have expressed these concerns to the City Administrator. He has addressed them to my satisfaction, I guess. That being that when any housing is built, it will either be: 1) All the low-density buffer housing, or 2) A complete west to east segment of both buffer and high density housing. If and when a Developer's Agreement is reviewed by the Council, this Phasing Plan would be firm. I think we should make this part of our consideration tonight, to alter the phasing to allow all housing in Phase lat the developer's discretion with the aforementioned stipulations. Then, there won't be any more surprises for anyone. Also, our Ordinance is quite specific in requiring a site plan. I was hoping to have one tonight. It makes me wonder how we can consider these changes without one." Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Seven Councilmember Gunkel expressed the following concerns and questions that she had regarding the Barthel/Dietz Planned Unit Development preliminary plat, and the changes in the Parcel D Phasing Plan. 1. When the preliminary plat was submitted for consideration, was it accompanied by a Proof-Of-Ownership Document? Who was named? 2. A final plat must be submitted within one year approval or the preliminary plat is considered plat there has to be a Developer's Agreement. are approved tonight, what is the deadline for of 83? or July of 84? of the preliminary plat void. Before the final If these requested changes the final plat - November 3. Who is asking for the changes? 4. I understand Barthel's option on the property has expired. Has it been renewed? For how much of the PUD area? If yes, A. The conditional use permit was issued to Barthel only. I realize Mr. Dietz has a contract for deed on the property, but does that mean he can request changes to Barthel's conditional use permit? If no, B. Does that mean that a conditional use permit is issued for the property and not to the individual who signed it, and any involved party can request changes? C. Where are we? 1) The option has not been renewed yet and may not be renewed at all. Based on the track record, I wouldn't bet on anything. 2) Mr. Dietz is a landowner, not a developer (as he himself stated). Therefore, when the dust finally settles we could be involved with a whole new set of people and plans. Further discussion was carried on regarding the Developer's Agreement, the conditional use permit, and the site plan. The City Administrator indicated that the issue to be considered at this time was a land use issue. THE VOTE OF THE PRECEEDING MOTION PASSED 4-1. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL OPPOSED. Mayor Hinkle closed the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting. Mayor Hinkle called the City Council meeting to order. 4. Establishing Bond Sale for Gates Avenue Improvement Project. The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Bob Pulscher of Springstead was present to discuss the terms of the improvement bond sale for the Gates Avenue Improvement Project. Mr. Bob Pulscher reviewed the recommendation to the City Council for the $850,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983. Mr. Pulscher indicated that it was recommended that the bonds be sold August 22, 1983. Discussion was carried on regarding the amount of the sale and the MSA funds that would be Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Eight received for the Gates Avenue Improvement Project. Discussion was carried on regarding the assessment of the project, and whether the costs would be in by October 15 for assessment this year. The City Admin- istrator indicated that the City would have to do their best in obtaining all costs for the project for assessment this year. Mr. Bob Pulscher indicated that approximately $80,000 would have to be added in capitalized interest should the project not be assessed in 1983. Discussion was also carried on regarding the procedure to obtain Moody's rating for the City of Elk River. Mr. Bob Pulscher indicated that the City must apply for the rating, if not, Moody's will drop the rating which would ultimately hurt the bond holders. Mr. Pulscher further indicated that he did not feel the City of Elk River's bond rating could improve at this time because of the uncertainty of development, and the large portion of undeveloped land in the City of Elk River. Discussion was carried on regarding the City's Bond rating. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF $850,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR SALE AUGUST 22,1983. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Councilmember Gunkel questioned the possibility of reconsidering the road improve- ments through the PUD. Councilmember Gunkel also questioned the assessment de- ferral. The City Administrator indicated that it was his impression that the developer's position was that all elements of the Improvement Project would be completed through the PUD including the road, and that the developers anticipate the deferrment on the assessments. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he did not have any problem with the deferrment of the assessments, but wanted a time limit on the deferrment. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that certain observations have caused serious question regarding the best interest of the City of Elk River. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that the City has done several things to accommodate the expected new facilities, specifically; 1) A sanitary sewer 2) Designed a comprehensive storm sewer system. 3) Made specific changes and improvements to School Street which included the first portion of the storm sewer. 4) Plans are in hand to widen lower Gates, widen and upgrade Main Street from west of 169 to Highway 10, install stop lights on Main and 169 and Main and Highway 10, improve water storage service. 5) Went for bids to complete the storm sewer, Gates Avenue, and to install water pipes with the understanding a Developer's Agreement would be soon forthcoming. 6) Award said bids with some contingencies on the segments in the PUD area. Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Nine Counci1member Gunkel indicated that the other involved parties have spent: 1) 11 months of 1982 coming before the Planning Commission and City Council with continual changes, plans and vague answers. 2) After 8 more months there is still no Developer's Agreement. 3) The requested housing changes took the community back 3~ years. Counci1member Gunkel indicated that there seems to be a rather technical and confusing situation between the fee owner, the contract for deed owner, and the developer. Counci1member Gunkel indicated that she questioned the possibility of the City having a viable preliminary plat and conditional use permit, or is it just a lot of paper that will become meaningless at the end of the yearZ Counci1member Gunkel indicated that the City of Elk River is being asked to defer road assessment~4and questioned why this would be considered. Counci1member Gunkel indicated that it was her recommendation that the City of Elk River be granted the easements, and if not let the bids of the PUD segments lapse, go thru condemnation, rebid the project, and proceed. Councilmember Gunkel also recommended that the City Council provide the necessary assurance to the state that the MSA road will be built at a later date, drop the road construction from the PUD project, and proceed with the storm sewer and water pipes. Counci1member Gunkel expressed her concern of the integrity of the developers. Counci1member Duitsman indicated that he felt there should be a time limit on the deferrment of the assessments. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFERRMENT OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE PUD FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO FOUR YEARS, OR UNTIL THE PROJECT STARTS AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 8%. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 2-3. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM, COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL, AND MAYOR HINKLE OPPOSED. Further discussion was carried on regarding the time limit of the deferrment of the special assessments. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE DEFERRMENT OF THE SPECIAL ASSESS- MENTS FOR THE PUD AREA. UP TO THREE YEARS OR UNTIL THE PROJECT STARTS, AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 8%. COUNCILMEMBERENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4--1. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL OPPOSED. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, \?&:~~~imer Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer PB:st