09-25-2002 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V11NUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 24, 2002 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Fahey. Ayes (5) LaValle._ Fahey. Scalze, - ylontour..Anderson. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. RECESS At this point in the meeting, 9:26 p.rn., Council tool: a short recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:35 p.m. CONCEPT Council noted that Carl Johnson, owner 01'3203 Country Drive, was not REVIE\V OF present this evening. The City Administrator reported that based on SUBDIVISION previous discussions or this property between the Council and Mr. AND Johnson, he informed Johnson that the property line For proposed Lot 1 REZONING — should be moved back further into the property to maximize the 3203 COUNTRY development potential ol'the property abutting Country Drive. Fahey DRIVE — agreed that that was the direction that the City Council had conveyed to CARL Mr. Johnson. Fahey also indicated that any rezoning of the back of the JOHNSON property should be conditioned on the property owner development no less than a 30,000 square foot building on Lot I. Scalze noted that unless Lot I is enlarged, it would be very difficult to meet parking requirements for a 30,000 square foot building. The City Administrator described his understanding of the Council's direction for enlarging Lot I which includes the elimination of the three - sided canopy structure and relocation of the three canopies further into the back lot. The Administrator also noted previous indication by Mr. Johnson of his plans to eliminate the small being located directly behind the former Knox building. Anderson suggested the need for a development agreement which would establish a timeline for redevelopment of the site. If that timeline is not met, than the outdoor storage on the back property would have to be eliminated. Anderson suggested that the development agreement contain a penalty clause that would go into ellect if the outdoor storage is not eliminated as required The City .Attorney suggested it was not feasible establish conditions tied to a rezoning. He indicated that a better mechanism to accomplish what the City desires would be an interim use permit. The City Planner agreed, and noted that the development agreement can establish the timelines that the L:.. LLD/ decides rlpUll. The City Administr :nor also suggested entering into an option agreement for the front property so that if the property owner does not redevelop the - 2 3 -