01-27-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

razNUrEs City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Slumber~land was developed thr•ough the joint effor•ts of the City and business Sign community. Var•iance (Cont.) Blesener~ pointed out that if a var~iance is appr•oved for• Slumber~land, Gardner Bros, will be back to request a similar variance. Lee pointed out that he could have 17 sites on this 16 acr~es r•ather~ than one. Scalze pointed out that a r~oad would be impr~oved thr•ough the site, in that instance, with signs facing the r~oad. Lee felt that if the City was inter•ested in getting o,uality development from an economic development standpoint, larger siqns were warranted. Lee also pointed out that Slumber•land developed without any tax incr~ement financing assistance. Fahey asked the Planner~ to deter~mine if the City's or•dinance is out-of- line with what other~ cities ar~e doing, noting that the City is competing for• development with cities that have a lot mor~e to offer•. Slumber~land Lee asked the status of getting sewer• and water to the Slumber•land Sewer and development. t~later The City Attor•ney r~eplied that the necessar•y easements ar•e in conclei*~nation Agenda and it will take 120 days from when the condemnation pr~ocess began to Addition get the easements finalized. TIF Lee asked if the ar~ea was in a Tax Incr•ement Financing Distr•ict. Agenda The City Planner~ r~eplied that the ar~ea has been designated as a develop- Addition ment distr•ict. Consider~ation of tax incr~ement financing is on a by project basis. Lee reported that he would like to r~equest Tax Incr•ement Financing assistance to develop the cor•ner~ pr•oper~ty that he would be pur•chasing fr•om Gar~dner~ Br~os. once the 1 ot spl i t i s appr~oved. Lee r~epor~ted that he must buy this pr~oper•ty due to the easement that was necessar~y for• the Slumber~land site and that he could not develop the site without TIF. Fahey suggested that P~r~. Lee di scuss thi s matter~ wi th the Ci ty P1 anner•. Fahey also suggested that the Planner• study the City's sign or•dinance and submit it to the Planning Commission for• their~ review. Bi 11 boar~ds Scal ze noted that ther~e ar•e thr~ee bi 11 boar•ds i n the Ci ty that she i s awar•e of. When the Ci ty revi sed i ts si gn or•di nance, bi 11 boar~ds wer~e Agenda eliminated as per~mitted signs, and the owner~s of these billboar•ds were Addition given 5 year•s to r•emove them. Scalze felt the 5 year•s had lapsed and Page -13-