pf_02726 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chainnan Keith Witecki and Planning Commission Members 2 February, 1995 Page 3 return on their investment that they need to complete their building program for our schools was by serving as their own developer. This project as proposed promises to add something in the area of $32,000,000.00 in market value to the City tax roles. It is a type o~ development that has been proven to pay more in taxes than it "''-I'IL4o", =_ 0I'III""_,:",,,," T. .....:n _.._..:':,1_ .........._ +.-_.....". _.c...._......:__ ..L."",... .......- __""...1... __......,.J_..J:_ ~L_ r"I~.a..... 'Y't'L_ C't_L__1 IJUi:H~ lil !)!;;;1 VIIJ!;;;!). .U Wli1 }JIVVlUv &.WV ",)'}Jv~ V111VUIWJc "J4&. cue Olea",)' llevueu 1111,11\;;, \.,.01",)'. .L11\;;' ""'11UUl District will accomplish these objectives within three years, working with a highly skilled and experienced team of builders that are financially strong and highly reputable. We are proud of our proposal and we think the City should be proud of the process that we have' conducted together and .....1__ ._.__ _._ _ ....L... L!'.....-.. .L1_~_ ..J__......1.-.......--....._.-...L me p:rospec~s 1UI" lIDS oevelupmem. From a planning and zoning perspective the application is largely a single family residential plat proposed on land that has been zoned R-l for decades. All of the proposed lots are well in excess of the City's standards. The land has been guided MRMedium Density Residential since 1989 and in total could have supported up to 700 units. We are simply asking for approval of a rezoning for a portion of the property, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. When you strip away all of the issues related to history and the ownership and the efforts to achieve a joint development with neighboring properties, the application is really very straight forward. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT PUD AND HARSTAD PLANS FOR ROBERTS AND GRAUEL PROPERTlliS Again, the narrative describes the whole process that the District employed, at the City's request, to include the Roberts and Grauel properties in this project. That background will also not be repeated here. A couple of basic issues do need to be stated. First, the District could not purchase these properties to include them in a joint development. Second, the District could not enter into a typical development partnership for real estate development to raise money for school purposes. Third, the District could not force the adjacent land owners to participate. Fourth and finally, there never was any financial advantage to the School District to pursue a joint development. It was done solely in an effort to achieve the best plan for the area. Frankly, withJ\.fr. Grauel's recent decision to sell his property to J\.fr. Harstad and be included in his plans, the matter starts to approach worst case scenario trom the District's perspective. They now have incurred all of the delay and wasted cost and end up with our own concerns about the compatibility of the adjacent development. We understand fully the objectives that the Planning Commission has in your efforts to achieve a useamless plan" between these separate applications. We have met with Mr. Harstad and we have