Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />October 25, 1989 <br />always remain commercial and could be developed as <br />commercial. <br />The City Attorney replied that if there is a rational <br />basis for the rezoning, and a usable function for the <br />rezoned portion of property, the rezoning would not <br />constitute a taking under the Law. <br />Blesener asked the depth of the commercial property on <br />County Road C where Mr. Boosalis has the first and <br />second phases of his retail center. <br />Boosalis replied that the property depth where the <br />first phase is located is 205 feet, and the depth of <br />the second phase is 270 feet. <br />Blesener asked the depth of the County Road C <br />properties. <br />Don Pierce replied that the County Road C properties <br />have over 300 feet in depth. However, Pierce pointed <br />out that if the back portion were rezoned to <br />Residential, a buffer zone would be required on the <br />back of the Commercial piece. Pierce suggested that <br />the property remain Commercial and no access be allowed <br />to the residential street. Pierce pointed out that <br />buffering would be required on the back of the <br />property. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City Planner has indicated <br />that if the back portion of the lots were rezoned to <br />Residential, there would be adequate depth of <br />Commercial property so that the lots could be combined <br />and developed as Commercial. <br />Blesener pointed out that if the north 135 feet were <br />rezoned, there would be between 220 and 225 of <br />commercial depth remaining, which is more depth that <br />Boosalis has for his Phase I commercial development. <br />Pierce pointed out that the property owners have very <br />little width on County Road C. <br />Fahey pointed out that the lots would have to be <br />combined to be developed as commercial. Fahey <br />suggested that the way the property will develop is <br />with TIF or some other form of assistance. <br />Pierce pointed out that commercial property is more <br />valuable than residential. <br />Page 12 <br />