Laserfiche WebLink
<br />January 16, 1979 <br />Minutes - page 11 <br /> <br />ORDINANCE NO. 623 <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />CONTINUED <br /> <br />Porter: do you recall any discussions that <br />you had with City officials concerning the <br />appropriate zoning of this property? <br /> <br />Caranci: Yes, we discussed this. We dis- <br />cussed it with Mr. Wurl, I believe Mr. <br />Drumm was their present and several mem- <br />bers of Aquarius there. We, Mr. Wurl <br />decided that if we came in agricultural <br />we wouldn't have any problem with the County <br />because of the confrontation they had <br />with the Mizel property; bring it in ag- <br />ricultural at this time until we decided <br />what we wanted to deve19pe it into and <br />in the future we could come in for zoning. <br />We didn't know if we wanted to develope <br />commercial, industrial, or residential at <br />the time because we were in the County and <br />bringing it into the City, of course we <br />had to give up alot too. <br /> <br />Porter: Was it your idea that it be zoned <br />agricultural initially. <br /> <br />Caranci: No. <br /> <br />Porter: Then who would you believe that <br />idea attributed to? <br /> <br />Caranci: Mr. Wurl said, let's bring it in <br />agricultural because it is alot easier at <br />the time. <br /> <br />Porter: Did you have any immediate plans <br />for development at that time? <br /> <br />Caranci: No we didn't. <br /> <br />Porter: Did anyone, either representing the <br />City or on the City Council advise you that <br />if you came in as agriculturally zoned land <br />that it would have to stay agriculturally <br />zoned land? <br /> <br />Caranci: No, we brought it. . ~ . <br />when we went ahead and annexed, no, that <br />question was asked if we intended to leave <br />it agricultural by the people in the aud- <br />ience and we said no, that in the future <br />we were anticipating probably residential <br />usage of it. <br />