My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-1983 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
01-26-1983 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2013 1:50:44 PM
Creation date
6/10/2013 1:47:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
Tom Sweeney <br />12 January 1983 <br />Page Three <br />5. Possibly we should tie occupancy permits to the signing of the <br />development agreement. Maybe this would provide some additional <br />leverage in dealing with Mr. Brinkman. <br />6. The development agreement should be recorded with the County. <br />7. A statement should be included in the agreement that it is understood <br />that the agreement, with attached exhibits, in effect becomes the <br />zoning for the site. <br />While this list is not exhaustive, it does cover the major concerns raised in <br />the review of the request. In addition, the following two questions should be <br />addressed: <br />1. Someone on the Council wanted to know if we should specifically <br />address the question of bingo in the rental hall. <br />2. Would it be a good idea to specify in the agreement the conditions <br />for rental hall use which are already listed in the Zoning <br />Ordinance? <br />You may also wish to review our staff reports, dated 30 April 1982 and 29 <br />January 1982 relative to issues which were raised in the review of the request. <br />Attachments 1 and 2 are project descriptions submitted by the applicants at the <br />time of application. Attachment 1 is the one submitted by Tom Krejci originally. <br />With the involvement of Joe Brinkman, the description became more specific. <br />Two things concern us regarding these descriptions: In the first one, mention <br />is made of installing a passenger elevator to service areas currently in- <br />accessible to the handicapped. This was not included in the second description. <br />Attachment 2 lists "adjust parking lot to code" as a second stage of improve- <br />ment to occur in 1984 -85. This is not acceptable as parking should be provided <br />in conjunction with or prior to occupancy. °ossibly the project description <br />should be redrafted clarifying these issues and then be included in the <br />development agreement. <br />Would it be possible to have the agreement ready for review by the City Council <br />on or before their 26 January meeting? Please advise us if you feel a meeting <br />between our offices would be beneficial. <br />cc: Joe Chlebeck <br />46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.