Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 4 <br /> <br />Wednesday, September 7, 1988 <br /> <br />increment was used to provide assistance to the developer. <br />Waldron responded that that was correct. <br /> <br />DeBenedet pointed out that the city must meet the "but for" test <br />to determine that the development would not occur but for the use <br />of tax increment financing. <br /> <br />Waldron summarized the city's policies concerning use of tax <br />increment financing for housing. <br /> <br />stokes stated that the current value for tax purposes on the <br />site was not based on $4.50 per sq. ft. but on something like .60 <br />per sq. ft. and that maybe the property has actually been under <br />taxed. Waldron stated that Ramsey County typically undervalues <br />property. <br /> <br />stokes inquired about what the total cost of the development <br />would be. Gregory replied that the total cost would be 16. 5 <br />million dollars. <br /> <br />DeBenedet indicated a concern that additional access to Lexington <br />Avenue would be requested by the developer of the retail portion <br />of the property. Gregory responded that they had provided for <br />good access to the site and would hope that additional access <br />would not be requested. Gregory stated that the retail developer <br />would have to request additional access on its own. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked if a traffic light is recommended at the <br />intersection of Lexington and Woodhill. Gregory responded that <br />it is not recommended at the current time, but may be warranted <br />sometime in the future. <br /> <br />Berry stated that as part of the commissions previous <br />recommendation, the developer was required to pay for the cost of <br />the signal at Woodhill and Lexington. Berry also pointed out <br />that there would be a traffic impact on the properties east of <br />Lexington. <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out that the current proposal meets previous <br />concerns including the closure of C-2, and that the density was <br />too high in the previous proposal, but the tax increment <br />financing can lower that density. Johnson stated that there <br />isn't a cohesive decision in the neighborhood and that she also <br />had a concern that a study should be done to determine the best <br />land use for the site. <br /> <br />Berry reminded the audience that the recommendation of the <br />planning commission would be in several parts. <br />