Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />Oct. 23, 1985 <br />Mosted & The Attorney reported that Mr. Johnson did not object to the price <br />Johnson that the City offered. However, the City has to see what else Mr. <br />Properties Johnson wants and how this will effect the price. <br />(Cont.) <br /> Johnson also is requesting a three-year pay-off, and the effect of <br /> this would ha ve to be determined on the City budget. <br />Mrs. Scalze asked at what point the City would call in the neighbors <br />to the property for a public hearing. <br />Mr. Fahey su~gested that in the offer to the Johnsons and Mosteds, <br />the Council state that the purchase would be contingent on the outcome <br />of a public hearing. <br />The City Attorney pointed out that the offers have already been made <br />without this contingency. The Attorney also pointed out.that the City <br />does not need citizen approval in order to buy the property. <br />Scalze pointed out that the proposal would involve a public hearing. <br />Also, the Park Commission would like topos of the property to see how <br />this property lies in relation to the City property across the creek. <br />The City Engineer stated that he would get this information. <br />Mr. Fahey indicated that if the Johnsons and Mosted come back with <br />counteroffers, that the City add the contingency that the purchase <br />would be subject to public hearing. <br />Trowbridge Ms. Nardini reported that when Lots 4 and 5 of Trowbridge Addition were <br />Addition rezoned to R-2 that the Council placed a deed restriction on the <br />Deed property that the property was to be screened from the adjacent B-3 <br />Restriction property. <br />841) <br />Agenda Nardini reported that the attorney for the purchaser of the property <br />Item No. 17 is now requesting that this restriction be removed as the property <br />has been rezoned back to B-3 and there is no need to screen B-3 property <br />from B-3 property. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 85-10-521 - RESCINDING THE <br />PREVIOUS RESOLUTION AS NO LONGER NECESSARY <br />WHICH PLACED A DEED RESTRICTION ON LOTS 4 AND 5 <br />OF TROWBRIDGE ADDITION FOR THE SCREENING OF THIS <br />PROPERTY FROM ADJACENT B-3 PROPERTY <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. <br />Ayes (4) Fahey, Collova, Scalze, Blesener. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Ms. Nardini abstained. <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 12, Page 550. <br />Page -23- <br />