My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2020 02 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2020 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2020 02 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:15:16 PM
Creation date
3/4/2020 2:58:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/18/2020
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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 />February 18, 2020 <br />Page 15of18 <br />assumptions are right it will work but if the assumptions are wrong it won't. Council needs <br />that information to make this decision. He feels the senior housing that is being proposed <br />will be very expensive and will only target a very small section of the City's senior <br />population. <br />Tom Delorey, 587 Augusta Lane, stated he would prefer clear language that the District is <br />never going to annex outside the service area. <br />Mayor Stolzmann stated it is unfortunate Council is trying to do this without the GDP. If <br />she had a GDP with details it would be easier to approve a service plan with concrete <br />information and to understand whether or not it is reasonable. With that information <br />lacking tonight, she doesn't feel any of the criteria are satisfied. She asked if Council <br />would be interested in continuing this until there is a GDP to consider. <br />Mayor Pro Tern Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 14; Series 2020; <br />Councilmember Dickinson seconded the motion. <br />Councilmember Brown stated he is supportive of something like this development on this <br />site, but he stated he does not see satisfactory evidence the criteria are met. The <br />applicants have not provided sufficient evidence and the .information is entirely <br />speculative. He stated he cannot bind the City to development plans we have not seen. <br />As State law stated the Council shall disapprove this unless satisfactory evidence is <br />presented, he feels he must vote no. <br />Councilmember Fahey agreed with Brown; without a GDP to understand the details she <br />stated she cannot vote yes in good conscious. <br />Councilmember Lipton stated that approving this tonight does not approve the GDP or <br />implicitly imply we will approve the land uses. There are guard rails in place and no bonds <br />will be issued before we see the GDP. All it does is allow for an election. He stated he <br />doesn't think a market study will give any revelations about the property and there are <br />enough safeguards in place for this to proceed. He noted the bond issuers will review <br />these at a level we never will. The framework is there and he stated he is willing to move <br />forward with the understanding we are still in control of this process and the final land <br />use. By delaying this tonight we may delay some very good things for the community for <br />no reason. He stated he is willing to support it tonight subject to the Mayor's earlier <br />proposed minor change. <br />Councilmember Dickinson stated everyone would rather have the GDP first but that would <br />delay the project by six months. He noted Council can approve this today and deny the <br />GDP later if it doesn't meet our standards. Approving this only allows an election; there is <br />no risk to the City now. We have the power to make changes later; we should not hold <br />them up for six months.' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.