Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Cit,y Council <br />June l, 1988 <br />The Council pointed out that the r•esidential str•eet would be r~equir•ed to <br />be impr•oved and that once the str•eet is assessed, the developer• will not <br />be able to affor•d to sit on the pr~oper~ty without developing it. <br />Collova felt that based on the City Planner's calculations a 40 foot <br />setback would be necessar•y in or~der~ for• the pr~oject to wor•k. <br />Scalze pointed out the fact that the State Legislatur•e does not meet until <br />Januar~y and the possibility that the Legislatur•e will not r•evise the TIF <br />bill as suggested by the Planner• in his r•eport. <br />The Planner~ r•epor•ted that an agreement would be dr•awn up with the developer• <br />that should the TIF legislation not be r•evised, the developer• would be <br />r~esponsible for• making up the 55% figur~e as outlined in his r•epor•t. If <br />the developer• does not take this r•isk, then the City would have to take <br />it. <br />Fahey stated that he would like to see an additional 10 feet of setback <br />on the nor•th, if possible. Fahey stated that he would like to see the <br />pr~oject go, but agr•eed 10 additional feet would be better• for• Townsley. <br />Townsley felt that the Council was concer~ned about the developer•'s deficits <br />and not hi s, poi nti ng out the 1 oss i n pr•oper~ty val ue he woul d r~eal i ze. <br />Fahey felt the loss in proper~ty value to Townsley would be gr~eater~ if a <br />r~oad wer~e developed adjacent to his proper•ty r~ather• than the cur•r•ent <br />pr•oposal . <br />Townsley r•equested that the setback be incr~eased and suggested that the <br />developer• could make his building wider• to make up for• the r•eduction in <br />length. <br />Blesener~ asked if a 30 foot separ•ation in the two str~ip center~ buildings <br />was necessar•y and suggested that the building be moved 10 additional feet <br />to the south. <br />Scalze asked if Boosalis had a tenant for• the nor•ther•n por•tion of the center~ <br />pointing out that this por•tion of the center• is much deeper~. <br />Boosalis r•eplied that the additional depth was being pr•oposed as a shield <br />to the Townsley pr•oper•ty fr•om the ser•vice r•oad in the back of the center <br />as well as fr•om lights. <br />Townsley asked if the setback is incr•eased,that 40 feet of the setback <br />remain undisturbed. <br />Fahey asked if ther~e was any pr•oblem fr•om the developer•'s standpoint with <br />a 50 foot setback on the nor~th and 20 feet in separ•ation between the <br />buildings. <br />The Ci ty Pl anner• suggested that the tur•ni ng r~adi us for• tr•uck mi ght be ti ght, <br />but felt the drive isles could be widened to accommodate this. <br />Page -5- <br />