|
REGULAR MEETING MAY 8, 2017
<br /> Mr. Baumgartner responded, That's correct. At one (1)time, that was a Fred's Transmission and
<br /> they had a big parking lot there, so the City would actually pick our trash up from the rear and
<br /> just go through Fred's Transmission alley. Then, of course, they took all that out. Now the trash
<br /> is picked up from the front.
<br /> Councilmember Karen White asked Mr. Corcoran if the Administration would support the
<br /> petitioner's request now, and if the Administration finds a new use for the vacated alley, they
<br /> would have a discussion with the petitioner later.
<br /> Mr. Corcoran responded, I believe once it's vacated, the alley then gets split in two (2). Half of
<br /> the alley goes to the north and half of the alley goes to the south. That would then preclude us
<br /> from—if that was the right location for an alley, and I'm not saying that in the future it would
<br /> be—but we don't hamstring ourselves in the future if development around it needed something
<br /> like that.
<br /> Councilmember White asked, So, as of today, and in the near future, there are no plans for this
<br /> land?
<br /> Mr. Corcoran responded, Correct.
<br /> Councilmember White asked, And there's nothing in the works?Nothing has even been
<br /> discussed?
<br /> Mr. Corcoran responded, Correct.
<br /> Councilmember Gavin Ferlic asked, Would it make sense to grant a temporary easement to the
<br /> Baumgartners? What would be your preference? Would it be to vacate this or would it be,
<br /> potentially, a temporary easement, where they could use this for four(4), five (5), ten(10) years,
<br /> pave it, have control over who goes in and out, and then it would revert back to the City at some
<br /> given time? Does that make sense to potentially continue this and see if you can work out some
<br /> sort of agreement on a temporary easement or some sort of use agreement?
<br /> Mr. Corcoran responded, Generally speaking, I think we would like to always maintain control
<br /> of property and right-of-way, as a preference of mine—and I believe it should be the preference
<br /> of the City. I'm not sure if a temporary easement as you described could work, but I can look
<br /> into that.
<br /> Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Corcoran, Are you guys in any type of agreement with CS&L,
<br /> or have any plans in the next one (1) to five (5) years to buy that property?
<br /> Mr. Corcoran responded,No, we are not. But if they were looking to sell...
<br /> Councilmember Scott responded, I understand that. He asked, Has this Council been fairly
<br /> cooperative with the City if they wanted to redesign, remap, replat a city block like this?
<br /> Mr. Corcoran responded, I'm assuming the answer to that is "Yes."
<br /> Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston stated to Mr. Baumgartner, I thought I remembered
<br /> that I had seen in a letter in here that the folks who own the property to the south—well, it says
<br /> here that they agree to vacate their rights, giving all rights to you, if this process moves forward.
<br /> She asked, And that's your understanding, correct.
<br /> Mr. Baumgartner respon ded Absolutely.
<br /> Councilmember Williams-Preston stated, So this is what came up in light of what I think you
<br /> were saying, Mr. Corcoran, that if we do this and we want to buy it back, it splits but it sounds
<br /> like there may be an agreement, and there's something in writing here about that all going to the
<br /> one (1) owner. That was just a comment, thank you.
<br /> Councilmember Broden asked Mr. Corcoran, With regard to this square block, does it fall into a
<br /> corridor plan? Do we have a vision for this block or the adjacent blocks?
<br /> Mr. Corcoran responded, I believe the southern portion of the site does fall within the West Side
<br /> Main Streets Plan. The remainder of the block does not. The block was purchased and the
<br /> properties demolished before my time, so I'm not exactly sure what the intent was at that time.
<br /> 5
<br /> II
<br />
|