1986-06-10 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes June 10, 1986 Council Business, continued Krueger reviewed staff report for a request for a preliminary plat of four industrial lots, stating this site is one of the most desirable sites in the city (park, lake); Krueger further stated that both Harold Peterson, of Jim Hill and Associates, and Mark Rich, Beisswenger's, had to leave the meeting. Gunderman asked what assurances could the city build in to get the quality that staff mentioned in her report; Krueger explained how it relates to the concept plan by Mike Giar, and the potential projects might want to be involved in tax increment financing which gives us more leverage to give us high quality. Schmidt believes we have to look at planning and land use kinds of issues in terms of development; we have no obligation to subsidize the project given the quality and tax increments that will not be generated if uses as are proposed are going to go into this pro- ject. If the asphalt plant does not come out and if enough tax increment is not going to be generated by building the hardware store there, the city is not going to have anything coming to it to facilitate and subsidize the development as it might if a real quality development were going to go on that site. The council can approve and they can build assuming they are able to deal with the contamination but the city doesn't have to give a dollar for relocation or doing anything else when it comes to their request for tax increment financing assistance because we would not have the dollars being generated by the project. Gunderman would like assurances that the site will be used to its utmost potential. Benke stated the ashphalt plant can be seen from several promin- ent locations within Long Lake Park and that fact bears witness to the concern the council had several years ago when we first got into the whole question of development on this particular site; Benke's concern is in the platting, which is the only issue before us tonight; the history of the site suggests that the development, with the asphalt plant staying, on Lot 2 and Lot 3 is somewhat what hindered in the level of quality that is supported or, as an alternative, would require greater city participation to achieve the comparable level of quality. Benke continued that with getting the hardware store into a new building the new site may encourage other development to occur; however, he did not believe a hardware store/retail operation is what the Planning Commissioners and the councilmembers had in mind several years ago when the site was looked at as a total site. To that extent, the proposed hardware store is perhaps a nonconform- Page Eighteen PL-146, Walburn Park Report 86-137 Resolution 86-87