11-20-2002 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 13, 2002 Scalze clarified that the canopy would become a three -sided structure. Johnson replied that that was correct. Anderson asked about the other two canopies that exist on the propert indicated that his plan would be to relocate those canopies to the back lot. poor soil conditions, they Y Johnson are buried into the y d1e currently resting on 25 to 30 foot concrete Due that the ground. These two canopies would be dismantled, cut in halt and reconstructed on the back lot as four shorter canopies. Scalze asked if this was consistent with the City's discussion with City Administrator replied that it is. He noted that relocating the canopies on the back lot will provide for a M�'. Johnson. The the canopies will not be visible from Cot outdoor y Drive. storage situation. that the main issue is the third canopy He also noted that Py and whether or not thatlwil remain. Administrator noted Scalze indicate that it was her recollection that the initial discuss was that all three canopies would be removed from the property. The was the initial discussion. However, subsequent d scu sionsswere for two of the canopies to be relocated to the back lot and staff's position is that the [herd cantohat removed. py be Montour noted that the outdoor storage area appears property owner's concept drawing and the City's spr erred layout the same on both Montour questioned whether the development agreement should address the development of the front gout of the property. parcels within a certain amount of time. The City Administrator acknowledged that this should be addressed in the Develo Agreement. pment Scalze pointed out that in considering the redevelopment assumed that the canopies would come down thus enhancing this property, building. Scalze felt that the canopy Y, the City impact on redevelopment the the front degraded the td e may have for a future area. property and may have a negative Johnson disagreed. He felt that leaving the canopy for screening redevelopment potential. Johnson noted that he will be using that was agreed � would improve the would screen that use from there e fuldtbe trucks the back lot Therr the use parked on that property. The canopy property. Scalze asked if truck parking was part of the original plan. The City that it was. Anderson pointed out that if the canopy is removed, would require an alternative means o('screening y Administrator the back use of f the property. City y. 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.