03-02-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 7 LAND STUDY (Cont'd) Bergly noted that the City Council has taken three • separate actions to deny connections with old Highway 10. He explained he had discussed with the former planning consultant, the Possibility of a divided entry way from Highway 96 down to the site, with fairly wide lanes on each side, so that if a blockage did occur on either lane, the traffic could be routed two ways on the other half of the facility. There is a very wide NSP easement along the entire drive and there would be ample space, if a development were proposed that would warrant an expenditure of that nature. The Planner advised Commission he had received several inquires relative to this area there appears to be interest in the site. Member Zehm questioned if Council had expressed an interest in Tax Increment Financing. Member Malone explained his observation of Council discussions, relating to the study, was that Council favored pursuing some type of incentive for development in the area. Councilmember Winiecki agreed. Bergly noted there appears to be sufficient problems involved with development of this area to warrant consideration of some type of incentive consideration; multiple ownerships, poor access, existing uses, and encumbrances on properties in the form of easements. Planner Bergly requested Commission define objectives for planning development of the area and provide rationale for public involvement. Commission identified the following objectives: -Study development that offers tax return to the community. -Study bonding alternatives; would have to be developed relatively soon, as bonds may not be available within a short period of time. -Explore "business campus" types of development; corporate headquarters, up-scale business park. Quality development that addresses the image the community would prefer maintained. -Encourage the development of the entire parcel by one entity; improves continuity. -Study removal of uses which are deemed undesirable. -Placing the community in a situation whereby developers are aware of the fact the City is willing to work with them on a development project, rather than the City actively developing the area. -Study Tax Increment Financing; set goals, and time frame. Discuss public improvements; what projects would be necessary, what type of tax return there would be, and length of time it would take to realize benefit of improvement. Members discussed the fact that some the existing uses in the area are less than attractive; it was the consensus of the Commission the research on this matter should be done expeditiously. Planner Bergly noted that Council had requested the study be undertaken, keeping in mind past City policy to encourage quality development in the City. . Commission members Curtis, Probst, Malone, Zehm, and McGraw volunteered to serve on a Task Force to study the issues. Member Martin advised he would attend meetings when he was available. Councilmember Winiecki stated she would also serve. Planner Bergly was asked to Chair the Task Force.