City Council Minutes 1984 02 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2/7/84 Page -18- development goes counter to that premise. Homart is a business and a business whose number one primary objective is the profit motive. The profit motive of business and the maintenance of quality of life goal and objective for City Council can sometimes be conflicting; sometimes they are inconven- ient; sometimes it can provide revenues to a business is also beneficial to the City and the peop:Le that dwell there. He felt in this particular instance, it had at least been demonstrated to him quite clearly that these are conflicting objectives. Therefore, the City is perfectly within its jurisdiction to repeal the former annexa- tion agreement. Mayor Meier asked if staff had any further presentation. None. Council questions and comments. Councilwoman Morris Councilwoman Morris commented that she felt there were a number of good points brought up this evening by the people who spoke. Sh.e stated as everyone knew, she was clearly in. favor of :repealing the current agreement. It. was her feeling that there were specifics that had to :be dealt with, as well as basic analysis issues that were brought up this evening. One of the major issues that she felt uncomfortable with was the possibility of additional office use on Parcel C. She wa.s never in favor of Parcel B, and the fa~.ct that it could be considered for putting additional use on that area was appalling. While she recognized the need for easing the intensity of Parcel J, didn't feel a transfer was needed from one to the other. If a park is needed in Parcel J did not favor trading off our open space buffer. Past and present council have often discussed open space buffers between our cities, and wE~ have entered into possible agreements with the County with Lafayette to accomplish this goal. Yet with development, Parcel B violates that concept. She agreed that Parcel C should not be developed as a park, as it is only usable to Parcel B. In study sE~ssion discussions the cost to the City to develop Parcel C as a park would be exhorbitant; tYierefore would welcome it as open space particularly for the visual impact.