Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 27, 1993 <br />Todd Jones, representing Two S Properties, reported <br />that he has had some brief discussions with Naegele. <br />Jones recognized the fact that the City has rights to <br />require the billboard to be removed, but it is a <br />compensation issue. Jones reported that he is not in a <br />position to terminate his lease with Naegele. This <br />lease extends out for a number of years, and Jones <br />stated that he cannot default on this contract. <br />Scalze pointed out that the City has the option of <br />either amending or not amending the PUD Agreement. <br />Jones agreed, but again pointed out that he is not in <br />the position to terminate a legal obligation that he <br />has with Naegele. <br />Scalze pointed out that when the sunset clause was <br />added to the City's ordinance, a five year clause was <br />used so that property owners would have an opportunity <br />to get their investment back. <br />Jones reported that Naegele's legal counsel has some <br />opinions on the City's rights to enforce the sunset <br />clause. <br />Scalze pointed out that the issue is not enforcement of <br />the sunset clause, but Two Properties' request for <br />amendment to a PUD Agreement. <br />Jones pointed out that Two S Properties is requesting <br />an additional building on the site, and indicated that <br />this issue was addressed back in 1984. The development <br />agreement on the property references additional <br />buildings stating that in the event the additional <br />buildings would be used for other than mini-storage <br />use, approval would be required of the City Council. <br />Jones pointed out that the building would be used for <br />mini-storage. <br />Scalze noted that the building being requested is <br />larger than what was discussed initially in 1984. <br />Jones agreed that the building was slightly larger, but <br />noted that it is in character with the development <br />agreement adopted in 1984. <br />LaValle stated that it appears that Naegele will not <br />remove the billboard on a voluntary basis unless there <br />is compensation involved. <br />The City Attorney reported that the existing PUD <br />agreement does not reference the billboard, and as <br />such, amendment of the PUD would be an issue <br />independent from the billboard issue. <br />Page 5 <br />