SM 06-12-80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Be d Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. Mir. Ellison continues.... tandpoint exhibits those qualities hich warrant an incentive to cause edevelopment treatment to take place. r. Butler: This is the first petition hich has been filed with the Council nd submitted to the Redevelopment epartment for its review under the ew procedures. It is my interpreta- ion of the ordinance that we are to ook at the specific property on which he project is going to be redeveloped. n the ordinance itself I believe there s considerable language that leads to hat conclusion. Beyond that, the epartment was involved in the develop - ent of the process itself. This matter as considered during the development f the process, and it is my understanding hat the intent was to limit the review y the department and then ultimately y other bodies who are going to be ooking at it, to the specific arcel in question when it comes to he issue of whether the project is oing to be developed or going to occur n land that has been bypassed or under - tilized due to economic circumstances hich have deterred normal development. s Mr. Szarwark i rtdi Cates as a rule the ouncil when ultimately making the ecision, is going to look to our recom- endation along with recommendations y other bodies. However, our recommend - tion as based upon the report is directly elated to that interpretation. If the ouncil determines that our interpreta- ion is wrong then of course, they are of going to follow, that is,:assuming f the Commission were to adopt the taff's report. r. Szarwark: May I ask the Commission or this, then? I think that there is general agreement with respect to the acts, namely that our parcel of real state is not blighted but that the eighborhood is such that general onditions.... 16