My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECM 01-06-1988
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
MINUTES
>
1988
>
PRECM 01-06-1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2007 1:14:58 AM
Creation date
4/11/2007 1:03:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
Council Meeting Minutes <br />January 26,1988. <br />T at much less cost and less exposure to the city as well; and his <br />efforts have received a cold shoulder from the city. <br />Goldsmith asked, if decisions have been made and the process has <br />gone beyond their constructive input, what can D & T do, what can <br />be done, what are their options; and indicated D & T has spent a <br />substantial amount of-time and money with Perry Anderson on pre- <br />paring plans, proposed additions, and improvements which they be- <br />lieve will be consistent with the redevelopment. <br />Locke stated the council had approved the development agreement <br />that encompasses the entire area which includes D & T Trucking; it <br />was added to our redevelopment district. over a year ago; has had <br />several conversations with representatives of D & T Trucking and <br />is willing to continue discussing the possibilities of their busi- <br />ness in this site. Locke .advised council that D & T Trucking's <br />outside storage makes it difficult for them to conform with the <br />basic concept of industrial use that the development agreement <br />calls for in this district. <br />Locke- stated he will continue working with D & T Trucking and <br />noted, at this point, the plan in Phase I does not entail any of D <br />& T's property; it continues to have access; if they wish to pro- <br />pose some form of development of their property, it is their right <br />to proceed through the normal zoning, planning, and development <br />process; we are only preparing acquisition actions on the Phase I <br />properties, and is working with Brighton Corporate Park to try to <br />facilitate development of Phase I at this time. <br />Goldsmith expressed frustration because there has been some <br />attempt to tie-the development agreement to a completion of the <br />project, not just Phase I; no one has put forth a concrete plan as <br />to what will- happen in Phase II and Phase III- and they would like <br />to have some input into that and to whether or not the two addi- <br />tional phases are required; a little concerned about the city pro- <br />ceeding with blinders for Phase I and no consideration for Phase <br />II and Phase III. .Goldsmith asked why there is a disinterest in D <br />& T Trucking, and stressed the importance of looking at the entire <br />project. <br />Benke also expressed frustration because of the number of meetings <br />held on this proposal; there are some general concept plans, but <br />not site plans which we will not receive until final plans. <br />Goldsmith is encouraged that they will have the opportunity for <br />input. <br />Williams asked if there had ever been a meeting between D & T <br />Trucking, the developer, and staff at the same time; Goldsmith. <br />stated he was not aware of such a joint meeting; has not found any <br />alternative that would not have severe consequences to D & T <br />Trucking; understands there .was no particular plan for Phase II <br />and-Phase III; had attempted to be apart of that. <br />Page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.