Laserfiche WebLink
Housing & Redevelopment :\utho~-i ,w Page 3 <br />March 17, 2004 <br /> <br /> the remaining were multiple violations bv downto~vn employees. Captain Rolfe stated <br /> that violators were given warnings, not tickets. <br /> <br />Mr. Prosser stated that during the individual stakeholder meetings for do~vntown tenants <br />and business o~vners, staff received feedback regarding tine parking proposal and felt that <br />there is a strong sense of investment by doxvnto~vn owners and tenants. He stated that <br />successful downto~vns never have enough parking but that the City; needs to enter into a <br />partnership ~vith downto~vn o~vners and tenants in order to successfully enforce the <br />parking rules. <br /> <br />e. Construction Staging Areas <br /> <br />Director of Economic Development Mehe[ich reviewed the illustration sho~ving the <br />construction staging areas. They include utilizing the commuter parking areas north of <br />Highway 10 and north of the railroad tracks. <br /> <br />Commission Toth inquired as to the par-king requirements for fine First National <br />Financial Center, as they had offered one of their parking lots as an opportunity, for <br />temporary, parking during the construction phase. Ms. McPherson reviewed the par'king <br />requirements for the First National Financial Center. <br /> <br />4. Regulatory Approvals <br /> <br />Mr. Prosser introduced the subject of regulato~ approvals indicating that several approvals <br />would be required after an executed Development Agreement and prior to construction <br />commencing. He noted that no assurances have been given to the developer in regards to <br />receiving the approvals from the City. <br /> <br />Director of Planning McPherson reviewed the regulatoO' approvals that will be required <br />from a land use perspective. They include, but are not limited to, Wild and Scenic <br />requirements, setback variance, and an evaluation of the Downto~vn District Standards and <br />potentially some type of plat. <br /> <br />Ma0' Ippel revie~ved the tax increment financing process, stadng that it has not been <br />determined if the projects will be located in one district or two. Staff is looking at either a <br />housing or a redevelopment district. Ms. Ippel reviewed the public hearing notification and <br />process fimelines reladng to tax increment financing. <br /> <br />5. Development Agreement Issues <br /> <br />a. Connecting Bluff Block andJackson Block Projects <br /> <br />Mary, Ippei reviewed the meeting which occurred betxveen Cit7 staff and MetroPiains on <br />March 10, 2004. The purpose of the meeting xvas to review the components of the final <br />Development Agreement, including financing, timing of construction, and connecting <br />the Bluff and Jackson Block projects. This is an outstanding issue; the developer ~vould <br />like to have the projects move independent of each of other and staff is attempting to <br />determine what the CiU, is or is not willing to do. Input from the H2R~5 and Council <br />would be appropriate regarding this issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Prosser stated that this issue should be resoNed within the next two to three weeks. <br />The consensus of the Council and HtL5 xvas that the t~vo projects should be connected. <br /> <br />S:~MINUTI:'S\,201)4~xCouncil Minutes\031704HR~ & CC.doc <br /> <br /> <br />