My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 05 21
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2012 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 05 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:16 PM
Creation date
5/18/2012 10:33:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2012 05 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 19, 2012 <br />Page 4 of 12 <br />La Grave – You mentioned “low key marketing”. <br />Phil – we have a sign up on the property. <br />La Grave – I wonder how successful the project would have been if it were marketed more <br />aggressive. <br />Phil – Low keyed marketing has not produced a buyer. My analysis is the interest without the <br />building on it would be greater. <br />La Grave – How would you know the potential of this site if you didn’t market this building <br />greater. <br />Phil – you have the information before you. <br />Koertje – We appreciate how cooperative you and the owner have been. <br />Phil - I will pass that on. <br />Stewart – I agree. This is a big project and very important to the City. <br />Russ – I want to reiterate how the owner has worked with the Planning Department and <br />Economic Development. This applicant has been very noble in that effect. <br />Stewart – are there two buildings on the site. <br />Phil – yes. <br />Stewart – so the property is larger than just the grain elevator. <br />Phil – yes. <br />Stewart – the effort to sell the property would include all structures, correct. <br />Phil – yes. <br />Lewis – this structure is right on the edge of the property line. What impacts would it face from <br />any future developments surrounding this property. <br />McCartney – the rail boundary goes parallel with the rail line so the eastern edge of the <br />property is right on the boundary. Then the property bends to the southwest. There is nothing <br />in our code that prohibits development around this property. We have informed the owner any <br />development of this property will require a land entitlement process, including platting of this <br />land. Through platting a public land dedication is required. The City might consider acquiring <br />the grain elevator through a public land dedication. <br />– <br />Public Comments <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.