pf_01575 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6. The system of deliveries being; to the front of the stores to an area which will most likely have no parking or standing allowed due to fire safety, raises an unresolved question of how deliveries will actually occur. 7. The quality of the development is lower than what was expected based on original discussions with the developers. Most noticeable is the replacement of the brick exterior with pre -colored architectural concrete block. A :similar concern is the plain concrete floor in the corridor areas. 8. The developer has not submitted a signed agreement with American Redevelopers on the joint use and cross easements for the shared driveway between the two projects. These are promised before the January hearings. 9. The developer has not obtained written concurrence with the owner of the Audio King site for the use of the northwestern corner of the Audio King site to angle American Street to miss the building on the TA►aURB site. The city potentially may have to acquire through condemnation thi3 segment and pay for it with city funds. The owner is working; on this problem, but no date was provided on the solution. 10. The developer did not include in his submitted material any reference to previous pledgcs to be responsible for the maintenance of the pond area, the adjacont city parcels containing; the pond or tho William Brothers Pipeline parcel. This pledge was rcaffirmad, but should he formalized in writing;. Thu doveloper has requested the city to assist the development through the construction of several improvements as public projeeta. These projects are in keeping with the city's policy on the use of tax increment ftmd3, but do provide significant assistance to the developer. The accompanying; list of public projects that are already approved, or requestod, total ovor $1100,000 of assistance to this development. The developer has asked that tale pavint project on Fairview be conaidored as a construction project at a 25% assessment level, rather than a new roadway at a 90% «ssessment level. The difforence is an estimated $45,500 which the city would provide. It should be noted that at the time of this report t1►e four improvement petitions were still unsigned by the ow nur. The signed dootiments were promised by Monday, Dec. 10, 1984. The developer alao requests that the wall on the pond be added to tine storm project. This $63,000 addition would provide 25`,Q" T.I. funding. His request did not agree to pay the remaining 75% of the cost through the special assesawi► tiL process, however. Tais should be provided before authorizing the addition to the 3torra project. The request of the city to fund potential future cost to I'ANURB of a traffic signal at County Road B2 and Americn with T.I. funds has also been made. This request is within the policy established for the use of T.I. funds and appears reasonable.