Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Study Session - 07/19/04 <br />Minutes - Page 11 <br /> <br />adopting a TIF Plan that didn't comply with policy; but noted <br />that at times during the process, changes were made to the City's <br />Comprehensive Plan to meet the current needs of the <br />community; and the Plan was not static and needed to change <br />continually in its functionality. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan requested that staff elaborate on how to <br />address a proposal that was inconsistent with the City's Master <br />Plan; and how "public need" was defined. Councilmember Ihlan <br />also sought clarification from staff over the last ten years, if there <br />had been different occasions when "big box" retail was <br />proposed, but not accomplished, and the historical context <br />related to those applications. <br /> <br />Mr. Welsch noted that a formal application had been received <br />from Costco in 1985 or 1987 at the site now being proposed, and <br />another "big box" retailer was proposed in 1997 at Center Pointe <br />that would have required an amendment to the Master Plan. <br /> <br />City Manager Beets suggested that the City Council also needed <br />to look at the context of a new "Target" retail facility and public <br />perception of it as a "big box" retailer; encouraging caution with <br />terminology and the perceived impressions they create. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan clarified that she was referring specifically <br />to the Twin Lakes Master Plan and the proposed "big box" <br />retailer at Cleveland and County Road C, specific to the Twin <br />Lakes development proposal. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder sought clarification from <br />Councilmember Ihlan on the date of the referenced Twin Lakes <br />Master Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan responding that the plan was dated June <br />26, 2001; and questioned how the City Council could show need <br />related to retail; thus negating a decision to provide assistance. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller responded that this was one of the philosophical <br />questions that need to be addressed by the City Council at this <br />time; whether to amend the existing policy, or leave it as is; and <br />what message that sent to the citizens and developers. <br />