08-10-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council August 10, 1988 Countr•y Pelstr•ing pointed out that he has submitted to the Economic Development Drive Committee a fir•st dr•aft schedule of how the r~edevelopment pr•ocess would pr•oceed. Pelstr•ing felt that by ear•ly May the City would be in a position to know what type of development it wants and whether• a pr•oject is going to be done or• not. The City has to get into the mar•ketplace and find out if there is some interest. Fahey pointed out that the cur•r•ent 6-month moratorium would expir•e the end of Mar~ch, and the City may need to extend it for• a couple of months to give itself time to find an appr•opr•iate developer•. After~ that, things should move quickly. Rudey felt that the faster~ the matter• was expedited, the better~. Fahey poi nted out that the mor~ator•i um doesn' t pr~event pr•oper•ty owner~s from selling their land. Rudy r~eplied that intev~est has dropped off since the mor~atorium was put i n pl ace. Rudy asked i f ther•e was any tr~uth to the r•umor~ that the Ci ty might buy the proper•ty. Fahey r•eplied that the City would pr~efer to see a developer pur~chase the pr•oper•ty and r•edevelop it. South Scalze suggested that the Council give consider~ation to a development Owasso mor~ator•ium on the South Owasso pr•oper•ty at this time. Scalze noted that Proper•ty the pr~oper~ty is for sale. Agenda Fahey suggested that the City Planner r•eview par•cels in the City which Addition he feels war~r~ant a rezoning to IP District and repor~t to the Council his findings at its next meeting. The Planner• agreed and suggested that at this meeting, if the Council so desir•es, it could schedule a public hear~ing to consider~ the r~ezoning and also pointed out that the matter• would need to be r•eviewed by the Planning Commission as well. The Planner• will make his r~eport at the August 24th meeting. Dog The City Attor~ney presented to the Council for• their~ consider~ation Ordinance proposed Ordinance No. 303, Dog Or•dinance. Agenda Blesener~ pointed out that on page 7 of the Or~dinance, Section 1101.170 A Item No. 10 the wor~d "shall" should be added before "be muzzled". Collova asked if this Or~dinance was in compliance with State Law. The City Attorney r•eplied that the Ordinance is almost identical to State Law. Page -15-