My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-09-2002 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
07-09-2002 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 1:08:24 PM
Creation date
7/23/2008 2:14:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 9, 2002 <br />hahe}~ tell the direction provided by the Council in April was very clear <br />that there was to be no outdoor storage on the property. Now Johnson is <br />presenting Plan 13. 1=ahey noted that there were some Council people who <br />were not enthusiastic about .Johnson's proposed use oi'the property, and <br />the direction the Council had given allowed for Johnson's use while <br />cornplying wish (hc City's codes. hahey indicated that the City's hope is <br />that ultimately the Front of the property will redevelop and some of the <br />existing sU'ucuu~es will be removed. Fahey asked if the three-sided storage <br />building would be one of the su~uctures removed. Johnson replied that it <br />would. <br />Fahey asked Johnson's vision for how the property will be redeveloped. <br />Johnson reported that his vision is that the property will be subdivided into <br />three lots, the front ol'the ~.~roperty would be redeveloped, the three-sided <br />storage structure ~n~ould be removed as part of the redevelopment of the <br />front two lots, and the bacl: lot would be rezoned Co accommodate outdoor <br />storage. Johnson indicated that once the rezoning and property division <br />are approved by the Council, he would anticipate having two to three <br />years to comple(e the redevelopment of the property <br />Fahey asked if, in (he meantime, Johnson wanted to have outdoor storage <br />on the site. Johnson stated that that was his desire. <br />Anderson indicated that when the City reached its initial agreement with <br />.Johnson in April, he was ofthc understanding that Johnson's business <br />needed outdoor storage and he voted to prohibit that outdoor storage until <br />the front of the properly was redeveloped. Anderson tell that this was a <br />means of motivating Johnson to redevelop the site. Anderson felt that if <br />ouuioor storage is allowed now, the City will have lost its leverage. <br />Anderson asked if the City allows the outdoor storage at this point what <br />incentive Johnson would have. to build on the front of the property. <br />hahey suggested (hat until a development agreement is in place with <br />timetables that include a sunset clause on outdoor storage in the event the <br />site is not redeveloped, the City should not allow outdoor storage on the <br />property. <br />Johnson indicated Iha( I~ic in(ends to enter hrto this development agreement <br />and that he will live by ~n~ha(ever timetables it includes. <br />fhe City Administrator pointed out that if there is agreement on Johnson's <br />concept proposal that will be reviewed this month, work can start on <br />drafting the development agreement. "i"he question is when Johnson will <br />be prepared to submit a final proposal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.