02-24-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Feb. 24, 198II School Distr~ict Issues (cont.) Fahey noted the lack of r~ecr~eational land on the west side of the f r~eeway . alesener~ suggested that the School Distr•ict could negotiate in the sale of the pr~oper~ty for• the use of the r•ecr•eational facilities. Fahey noted that under~ the lease ar•r~angement, the City would r•etain contr•ol of the pr•oper•ty. The City Cler•k noted that the City must consider~ the amount of tax dol l ar•s that woul d be gener•ated fr•om the pr•oper~ty as wel l. Scalze felt the matter~ should be consider•ed by the Planning Commission as wel l noti ng the poten ti al use of the pr~oper~i;y, potenti al r~ezoni ng as well as the other• options being discussed. Fahey pointed out that pr•esently the School Distr•ict has two potential purchasers of the site, Globe Business College and St. Bernard's High School. One is a for•-pr~ofit school, while the other• isn't. Fahey noted that if the City rezoned the property to PUD B-3 to accommodate Globe Business College, the City has then lost contr•ol over~ the pr•oper~ty and at some point in the futur•e the building could be r~esold to another~ use that woultl fit PUD B-3. However~, the City has the option of expanding the definition of the Public zoning to include a for~-pr•ofit school, and then the City r~etains contr•ol over• the pr~oper•ty. Scal ze stated that she was uncomfor~tabl e wi th r•ezoni ng the pr•oper•ty to PUD B-3. Fahey agr~eed. Blesener• felt the City had to consider~ the pr•oper~ty in mor~e gener•ic ter~ms. Scalze agr•eed, stating that the City cannot lose sight of the fact that it has to give an indication of what the City wants to see done with the site. al esener• fel t the pr•oper•ty shoul d r~emai n zoned Publ ic, wi th an expanded definition if necessar•y, and the City should tr~y to r•etain the use of the indoor• and outdoor• r•ecr~eational facilities. Fahey asked if the City would r•etain mor•e contr~ol with an expanded Publ i c defi ni tion or• by r•ezoni ng the pr•oper~ty PUD B-3. The City Attor~ney r~eplied that the expanded Public definition would provide more control for the City. Blesener~ did not feel the City should deal with any potential pur•chaser~s of the site and that the City had to consider• the pr•oper~ty in gener~ic ter•ms. The City will have to indicate what it would like to see as a futur~e use of the par~cel and wor•k with the School Distr•ict on r~etention of the r•ecr•eational facilities. Page -12-