My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-27-93 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
10-27-93 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:41:09 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:55:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 27, 1993 <br />Scalze noted that the billboard existed on the property <br />at the time the PUD Agreement was signed. <br />The City Attorney again noted that the PUD Agreement <br />does not reference the billboard. <br />Pedersen felt that the two issues were separate ones, <br />and asked if the investment that might be necessary in <br />getting the billboard removed was worth it. <br />Scalze felt that if the issues were separate, then the <br />City should address all three existing billboard. <br />However, Scalze felt that even thouqh the billboard was <br />not specifically addressed in the PUD, it was an <br />existing condition on the property when the PUD was <br />signed. <br />Hanson pointed out that there would be a tax base <br />increase with development of an additional building on <br />the Two S Properties site. <br />Pedersen pointed out that denying the PUD amendment <br />does not get the billboard removed, but only prevents <br />the development of an additional building on the site. <br />LaValle felt that if the PUD amendment is denied, the <br />City Attorney should then be instructed to start <br />proceedings to get all three billboards removed. <br />LaValle pointed out that it will be very expensive to <br />get these billboards removed, and questioned whether <br />the cost was worth it. <br />There was no one from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Morelan, seconded by LaValle, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />Morelan felt the two issues were separate. <br />The City Administrator suggested that if the City is <br />agreeable to amending the PUD Agreement, a condition of <br />that amendment could be that a copy of the lease <br />agreement with Naegele is presented to the City so that <br />the City is aware of the termination date of that <br />lease. The City could also require the billboard's <br />removal upon termination of the lease. <br />Jones reported that the lease expires in either 2020 or <br />2030. Jones reported that the billboard is a valuable <br />asset for Naegele at this point, and noted that the <br />billboard will be a valuable asset to Two S Properties <br />at the time the lease expires with Naegele. Jones felt <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.