My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2013 07 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2013 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2013 07 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:34 PM
Creation date
8/7/2013 7:59:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
7/16/2013
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2013 07 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 2, 2013 <br />Page 15 of 25 <br />Council member Loo asked if the general fund is receiving interest on the loan for the <br />grain elevator. Planner I Robinson confirmed the general fund is receiving interest. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton felt only the grain elevator building should be landmarked. <br />Council member Jasiak agreed and asked outside of the boundary issues, if there was <br />a compelling reason to wait on landmarking. Planner I Robinson stated staff is following <br />Council member's direction in January. <br />Council member Loo did not believe the conditions of the property have changed. <br />Mayor Muckle preferred to wait to see whether negotiations are successful with Old <br />Towne Group, or whether property ownership would change. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton stated the original discussion centered on landmarking all the <br />property. He favored only landmarking the grain elevator structure. <br />Mayor Muckle did not feel landmarking the structure itself would provide enough <br />protection of the City's investment. He felt the site lines should be protected as well. He <br />did not feel the NAPA building should be purchased with historic preservation funds if it <br />is not contributing to the historic site. Mayor asked City Attorney Light for a legal <br />opinion. <br />City Attorney Light explained the historic preservation ordinance stipulated the <br />resolution for landmarking include a legal description and characteristics of the <br />landmark to justify its designation and include a legal description of the location and <br />boundaries of the landmark site. The resolution must be recorded to ensure there is a <br />certainty of what is encumbered by the landmark. <br />One option would be to put the approved landmark resolution aside or draft a resolution, <br />with a legal description and language denoting the landmark would include land the City <br />has title to. The draft resolution would have to be revised because the landmark <br />includes the entire site except for the NAPA building. <br />City Attorney Light addressed the timing issue and did not see any inconsistency with <br />Resolution 20, as long as the landmark was in place prior to a transfer of title. He noted <br />there can be a landmark site subject to a conservation easement if adjacent sites are <br />contributing to the grain elevator. He recommended putting the landmark in place before <br />the title to the property is changed. If Council decided some portion of the property has <br />no historic value, the Historic Preservation Fund would then be reimbursed. <br />Mayor Muckle asked if landmarking the building provides an adequate description. City <br />Attorney Light stated there should be certainty on what is encumbered. For example <br />the description could be based on a survey of the property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.