Laserfiche WebLink
MINUT?dS <br />Ci.ty Counci.l <br />April 3, 1985 <br />Mr. Pahey reported that with tax increment fi.nanci.n~, the City would <br />t;et more benef:~it fr.om R-? property. Stenger pointecl out that t:he CiCy <br />would also get more neople. Scal.ze stated that the Ci.ty is not agai.nst <br />addi.tionaJ. people, but: is opnosed to apartment complexes. <br />Mr. Stenger pointed out the cost of. the paric land. Mr, 1'ahey staCed <br />that wherever the City buys additi.onal partc 1and, it cai11. be expensi.ve. <br />Mrs. Scalze poi.nted otit that the Ci.ty has no parlcs. <br />Mr. Stenger stated that the City has County parlcs and also school <br />pr.operty. Stenger d~i.d not f.eel the Ci.Cy needed a great deal of park <br />].ande Stenger f:elt thaY, the zonins; o[ the area should remai_n Li.ght <br />Industrial. and the City should put the word out that it is interested <br />in tax i.ncremenC financi.ng. <br />Mrs. Scal.re asked i.f. the City could require masonry buildi.ngs rather <br />than metal.. The Planner replied that the City has the power to do <br />this. <br />Mr. Pahey commented that Chis i.s what the Ci.ty should do along wi.th <br />developi.n~; a thoroughfare plan for the area. Mr. Fahey suggested that <br />perhaps the Ci.ty wi.ll. have to consi.der Mr. Walbon's request separately. <br />Mrs. Scalze did not f:eel that the City shoulcl do this and fel.t that: <br />whatever was deci.ded for the area should apply t.o ?4r.. idalbon's <br />property as we?1.. <br />Mr. rahey polled the affected property owners and aslced how many were <br />interested in residenti.al. zoni.ng f.or. Che area. Three property owners <br />i.ndicated t:hat this i.s what they ~vere i.n favor of. <br />Mr. Pahey stated that if the City adopts a thoroup,hf.are plan, the <br />owner.s wi.ll. have to develop accordi.n~; to the p1an, Pahey stated tl~at <br />he had no problem with i.ndustrial aoni.nn as lonp, as i.t is done i.n li_ne <br />wi.th a thorou~hEare plan. <br />Mr. F3utl.er commented that it coould be beCter if. the individual parcels <br />coutd get r.ogether and devel.op as a single parcel. Ntr. FiuCler also <br />st~ted that the Sten~er builcli.ng i.s a controli.ng Eactor for how the <br />rest of the narcel wi.l.l develop. Butl.er commented that the Walbon <br />truck operation ~ooul.d detract f.rom the si.te< <br />~Ir. }3utler felt that there should be a meeT.i.ng among the property <br />o~aners to hel.p in the development of: the siY_e. F3utl.er stated that <br />someone could put to{;ether a plan Lor the development of the si.te <br />and determi.ne the cosCS of. the devel.opment~ and then Chere might <br />be one property owner who wi.l.l. hold out for a large amount o£ money <br />f:or his property and Cl~i.s would I.~low the wl.~ole plan. <br />41r. Pahey aslced Butler i.E he caas agai.nst the concept of a thoroughfare <br />plan and letti.np, certai.n pi.eces develop within themselves. <br />Pa~;e -6- <br />