My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-10-1991 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
04-10-1991 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2014 11:01:56 AM
Creation date
7/24/2013 7:14:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
property development in the area. The City eventually concluded <br />that neither a rerouting nor a lowering of the elevation of the <br />roadway was economically necessary to promote the area's <br />development. Instead, the City rezoned the property from B -3 and <br />R -1 to the PUD designation and actively sought developers through <br />the use of TIF for appropriate projects. <br />Appropriate projects are generally understood to be in <br />conformance with B -3 or I -P (Industrial Park) uses and a higher <br />degree of site design and building material. While these <br />objectives were viewed as absolute for the provision of TIF, they <br />were considered desirable for all development in the district. <br />The City's interest in review of these issues is to ensure that <br />its investment in the TIF supported development is not <br />compromised by substandard projects. It is not necessary for - <br />projects to comply with the site layouts prepared by the Kandice <br />Heights developers. However, it is important to be sure that <br />projects do not interfere with the ability for others to comply. <br />In addition, if the City acts to permit additional investment in <br />a particular property which may require acquisition for a larger <br />project at some future date, that acquisition will have to <br />account for the additional investment made in the property. <br />The City needs to be careful not to unduly restrict-the potential <br />reuse of the property by another p rty. In this case, there are <br />at. least three separate option available to a buyer of the <br />Molsam property. First is the continued use of the 4roperty for <br />residential purposes. Such a scenario would not result in any <br />City involvement as the continuation of an existing non- <br />conforming use. The second option is for a buyer to remove the <br />existing buildings and construct new commercial structures. This <br />is presently being done on other property in the district. This <br />process involves full PUD review and approval by the City. The <br />third option is being pursued by Mr. Schmieg on the Molsam <br />property. This option involves change of the existing structures <br />into commercial uses, with some remodeling and building <br />expansion. <br />Mr. Schmieg's proposal is to remodel the existing house and <br />garage into a combination of office and storage space and add a <br />new structure to accommodate shop space for Mr. Schmieg's <br />business. A concept plan of the proposal is attached as Exhibit <br />C. <br />2 <br />Page 41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.