01-25-89 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Jan. 25, 1989 Cellular One (Cont.) or~ the tenant have the right to cancel. The Council discussed the fact that the lease pr•ovides that the amount of rent is based on the Consumer Pr•ice Index, with the Council feeling that the amount of r•ent, which would be negotiated at the 5 year~ renewal options, should be based. on competitive rates. Fahey suggested that the City Attorney work out the details of the lease with Cellular One and bring it back to the Council. Blesener pointed out that the City would like to be paid an equitable amount for~ the lease, and also have the option that if ther•e are any serious problems, the City could terminate the lease. Scalze agreed. LaValle pointed out that if ther•e are ser~ious problems with interference with TV reception or emergency broadcasting, the FCC will address these. Mr. Fahey introduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-1-28 - APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY CELLULAR ONE FOR USE OF THE CITY'S WATER TOWER AS A TRANSMISSION FACILITY AT A RENT OF $600.00 PER MONTH AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO IdORK OUT A SATISFACTORY LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CELLULAR ONE AND SUBJGCT TO APPROPRIATE LANDSCAP~NG AMD SCREENING OF THE EQUIPMEPlT SHELTER, IdITH FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE LOCATION OF TNAT BUILDING TO BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND PU~LIC IdORKS SUPERINTENDENT Char•les Weber Rezoning Agenda Item No. 6 > Nays (0). Resolution declared ad.opted. This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, Pages 29 and 30. The foreqoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Blesener•. Ayes (5) Fahey Blesener, Scalze, Collova, LaValle. Fahey op~ned the Public Hear•ing to consider the Charles Weber request to rezone his property at 2962 Rice Str~eet from Q-3 to I-1. Fahey repor•ted that the Planning Commission denied the r•ezoning r•equest taking the position that the Weber pr•oper~ty was a legally-conforming lot and could be developed as B-3 pr•operty. Fahey pointed out that Mr•. Weber's attorney had commented at the Planning Commission that this alternative was acceptable as long as the City took the position that the proper•ty was a legally-conforming lot. The bleber lot has 71 feet of frontage on Rice Str~eet, while City Code requires 100 feet of fr•ontage. Weber stated that he was not opposed to the property remaining zoned B-3 as long as the City made the statement that the lot was conforming and could be developed. Page -8-