Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 24, 2002 <br />Kloskin noted the concern about semis maneuvering within the storage <br />area and reported that most of their deliveries are made by pick-up trucks <br />hauling 2 to 4 boats at a time. IUoskin indicated that it is not often that <br />they have semi deliveries. <br />Fahey noted that the outdoor storage use of this property as proposed by <br />Boater's Outlet is not inconsistent with the use of the property on the other <br />side of the railroad tracks. <br />LaValle indicated that he was contacted by three people voicing their <br />support for the Eoater's Outlet proposal. <br />There was no one else present from the general public wishing to <br />comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Fahey, seconded by La Valle, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Scalze indicated that she would be voting against the Boaters Outlet <br />proposal based on the City Flannel's recommendation and the Planning <br />Commission as well as in deference to other taxpayers in the City who are <br />maximizing the development of their properties. Scalze pointed out that <br />outdoor storage does not help the tax base in a city. Scalze felt it was the <br />Council's job to encourage the development of properties to their full <br />potential. She also indicated that properties that are fully developed, in a <br />sense, have to subsidize those properties where outdoor storage is <br />occurring. Scalze noted the Council's recent discussions about <br />establishing a Business Loan Program, and suggested that this property <br />might be a candidate for that program in order to encourage its full <br />development potential. <br />Fahey felt it unrealistic to expect any significant expansion of this building <br />given its layout. Fahey suggested that "but for" the location of the raih~oad <br />tracks adjacent to this property, the property would be zoned I-1 similar to <br />the property on the other side of the tracks. Fahey felt that the outdoor <br />storage as proposed would not be visible given the location of this <br />property, and felt that the PUD zoning requested was appropriate. <br />Anderson pointed out that the City recently made changes to the B-W <br />'Coning District eliminating the outdoor storage use. Anderson stated that <br />he had no reason to believe that a tenant that did not require outdoor <br />storage could not be found {'or this building. Anderson the City should <br />wait a period of time to see if the changes made to the f3-W District were <br />workable. <br />4 <br />