My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-22-87 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
04-22-87 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:34:40 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:51:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />April 22, 1987 <br />Boosalis Boosalis requested that the concept approval and issue of tax increment <br />(Cont.) financing be handled separately. Boosalis also reported that the <br />reason for the request for tax increment financing is that the project <br />is a redevelopment project. Also construction costs are expensive, <br />and with the use of tax increment financing, the developer can charge <br />lower rents to tenants and, thereby, lure tenants to locate in the <br />center. Tax increment financing makes the development more probable. <br />Fahey stated that as it stands tonight he would not be in favor of <br />tax increment financing, however, stated that he would like to see <br />a working paper in terms of the benefits the City would derive through <br />the use of this financing. Fahey stated that the issue would be open <br />for reconsideration as far as he was concerned. <br />Scalze noted that the Planning Commission did not feel that this <br />development should be assisted with tax increment financing in order <br />to put the business across the street out-of-business and noted that <br />that business was not assisted with tax increment financing. <br />Blesener stated that he would be more interested in tax increment <br />financing if the development were more innovative and did not contain <br />a gas station/convenience store. <br />There was no one else from the general public wishing to comment. <br />Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 87-4-155 - CLOSING THE PU6LIC <br />HEARING ON THE BOOSALIS REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL <br />USE PERMIT AND PUD FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS <br />STATION <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. <br />Ayes (5) Blesener, Collova, Fahey, Scalze, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 17, Page 168. <br />Scalze asked the reason for the PUD rather than just subdividing the <br />property. <br />The Planner reported that he encouraged the PUD as it allows for <br />sharing of driveways and gives the City better means to monitor <br />the development. <br />Scalze was concerned with curb cuts and the green area shown on the <br />plat. <br />Blesener pointed out that the issue of curb cuts is covered in the <br />Planner's report. <br />Page -8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.