06-19-2017 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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