Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 4 <br /> June 19,2017 <br /> ----------------------------- <br /> generate enough revenue to complete the project in its entirety but they are banking <br /> on future development along 6"' Street. <br /> Mikaela Hout, Springsted Consultant, discussed how the TIF Plan is based on <br /> assumptions to determine estimated revenues from this project based on known and <br /> future anticipated projects. She stated,based on the assumptions, $1.4 million could <br /> be generated in tax revenue over 26 years. She explained how the city could <br /> reimburse itself through the Interloan Fund. <br /> Mr. Leeseberg stated staff believes the obligations of the Comprehensive Plan have <br /> not been met. He stated the city is still in the process of negotiating for the three <br /> northern properties. He stated staff recommends denial of the applications but noted <br /> the applicant could extend the deadline in writing. <br /> Mayor Dietz opened the public hearing for all three items.There being no one to <br /> speak to these issues,Mayor Dietz closed the public hearing. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard stated he is leaning towards approval of the applications <br /> and made the following comments: <br /> ■ Doesn't agree there is not a master plan for this project. <br /> ■ Doesn't agree the project doesn't meet the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> ■ Isn't sure this project offers the highest and best use of the area. <br /> ■ Suggested there may be other opportunities for both parties if the city and the <br /> applicant could continue to work together to develop the whole area. <br /> ■ Struggles with finding reason to deny the applications and noted the applicant <br /> has been patient with the city. <br /> ■ There's more opportunity to make a better project if everyone could continue to <br /> work together;however,there needs to be a balance with allowing the applicant <br /> to move forward. <br /> ■ Has questions related to how parcels to the north and south of this project are <br /> going to have access to their properties. <br /> ■ Seems it would make more sense to have the street located on the south side of <br /> this project, for the city's benefit, for a storm water management plan, <br /> transportation access for this project and all the other parcels involved, helping <br /> to expedite the quiet zones, and reconfiguration of turn lanes on Procter Avenue. <br /> ■ Project still meets Comprehensive Plan overall goals in terms of redevelopment. <br /> ■ Questioned what happens if the applications are approved;the applicant <br /> continues to work with the city;and we all come to agree on a different plan. <br /> What is the cost to city and applicant other than not starting construction this <br /> fall? <br /> Attorney Beck stated the best,most efficient way to keep this project on schedule for <br /> an October 1 construction start, consistent with the Master Plan,would be to have <br /> the applicant continue the timeline on these applications to August 22 because it will <br /> allow for better response time and flexibility of the process. He stated Council could <br /> discuss the project at their July 17 meeting and make a determination on whether <br /> P 0 W I R I U 9 Y <br /> otm§A UREJ <br />