|
?
<br />Special Council Meeting
<br />2-24-03
<br />Page 16
<br />commemorating the frontage, and that's what we are looking to, the frontage onto S.O.M. that would
<br />never be developed, it's residentially zoned and then a portion of that would be, depending on how
<br />much we encompass in it, would be the office/lab zoning. Those 2 zoning uses we basically would
<br />be saying that land will no longer be developed except as anything consistent with a park, according
<br />to the criteria of Issue One, if that were to get the funding. But that's where we are going with it.
<br />Because there are 2 categories in Issue One.
<br />Mr. Marquardt asked, are we hamstrung? In the event that Zako-I mean that may be property that
<br />you would want to trade off with something else if you're stuck with it being parkland, you won't
<br />have the option of selling it to somebody else....
<br />Mayor Rinker said well hamstrung; I think constrained is in the eye of the beholder. Parkland-
<br />there has to be good faith use to use it as Parkland. I don't know if that's restricted, Phil, if it's
<br />passive work, or ---
<br />Mr. Brett said well I was going to make note. That's why we're, for the particular Issue Two, we are
<br />only applying for the front 3 acres---
<br />Mayor Rinker said the front portion. But if, Bill, if you come in, if youenvision a scenario where.
<br />you want to flip land, that would be one where the only way you could flip it is--if you did----- So,
<br />we're trying to be judicious to be sure, in the areas where we are designating that we will not, at
<br />some future time, but we're also, you know, consistent with all the land acquisitions we have a
<br />number of different goals that may vary from time to time. Even though I think we still provide a lot
<br />of options with the lands that we've acquired that give a future Administration, future Councils, a
<br />future community mindset; 10-15-20 years from now if there appears to be a better usage for a lot of
<br />these properties that we own, maybe that day will present itself. We can only speculate. But this is
<br />something where with Issue One, at least as far as parkland would be defined, that we would be
<br />buying irito that.
<br />Mr. Brett said yes.
<br />Mayor Rinker said and we'd always, candidly, if we decided that they were to come through and say
<br />improve it, it's still subject to Council's final commitment to that anyway. But yeah, at some point
<br />you make a decision that you are putting certain limitations consistent with the funding mechanism.
<br />Mr. Marrie said i feel, and I hate to use this term, but, you know, we need this, the 3 purchase
<br />agreements, I think details could be worked out, or finessed through the Law Department and so
<br />forth, so that we're putting our money where our mouth is if we want all of these grants. And I don't
<br />really see a really big downside if you look into the future, maybe a downside like right now, but I
<br />think if we're looking for where we're going with the Village, and I use 2020 as some of their
<br />recommendations and so forth about keeping the Village green, I don't see where we're making a
<br />mistake going with these purchase agreements trying to get there. That's how I feel about it
<br />anyways, I just, I don't see how we're going to ask somebody to give us money and not put our ,
<br />money where our mouth is.
<br />Dr. Parker asked, so the rear acre or so or the most westerly acre of Zako would not be restricted? ?
|