11-13-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 13, 2002 Scalze clarified that the canopy would become athree-sided structure. Johnson replied that that was correct. Anderson asked about the other two canopies that exist on the property. Johnson indicated that his plan would be to relocate those canopies to the back lot. Due to the poor soil conditions, they are currently resting on 25 to 30 foot concrete pillars that are buried into the ground. These two canopies would be dismantled, cut in half, and reconstructed on the back lot as four shorter canopies. Scalze asked if this was consistent with the City's discussion with Mr. Johnson. The City Administrator replied that it is. He noted that relocating the canopies on the back lot will provide for a more orderly outdoor storage situation. He also noted that the canopies will not be visible from Country Drive. Again, the Administrator noted that the main issue is the third canopy and whether or not that will remain. Scalze indicate that it was her recollection that the initial discuss was that all three canopies would be removed from the property. The Administrator agreed that that was the initial discussion. However, subsequent discussions were for two of the canopies to be relocated to the back lot and staffls position is that the third canopy be removed. Montour noted that the outdoor storage area appears to be relatively the same on both the property owner's concept drawing and the City's preferred layout of the property. Montour questioned whether the development agreement should address the development of the front parcels within a certain amount of time. The City Administrator acknowledged that this should be addressed in the Development Agreement. Scalze pointed out that in considering the redevelopment of this property, the City assumed that the canopies would come down thus enhancing the property for a future building. Scalze felt that the canopy degraded the property and may have a negative impact on redevelopment of the front area. Johnson disagreed. He felt that leaving the canopy for screening would improve the redevelopment potential. Johnson noted that he will be using the back lot for the use that was agreed to and there would be trucks parked on that property. The canopy would screen that use from the front property. Scalze asked if truck parking was part of the original plan. The City Administrator replied that it was. Anderson pointed out that if the canopy is removed, the City would require an alternative means of screening the back use of the property. Scalze asked if the proposal was to rezone the front property to PUD and the back to I-1. The City Administrator indicated that that was correct.