Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting — 07/12/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 20 <br />required for roads, ponding, etc.); phasing; allocation of office <br />development; simultaneous acquisition; partial development; <br />and tax increment financing capacity. <br />Those items where consensus was not achieved, and requiring <br />continuing discussions, included demand for, marketability, <br />configuration, absorption and quality of retail uses, particularly <br />the necessity of an economic engine and the nature of that <br />engine {i.e., does it have to be a"big box?); weak demand for <br />and possible necessity of a subsidy to attract office uses; and <br />whether the Twin Lakes Parkway was essential and <br />implications of removing it from the proposed redevelopment. <br />Mr. Shardlow briefly touched on trip generation and traffic flow <br />demographics; previous documents and studies; financing <br />issues; land assembly and site preparation; development <br />alternatives; educational components; and financial policy <br />decisions to be made by City Council. <br />Mr. Shardlow further addressed redevelopment strategies and <br />monetary sources; market forces and demographic changes in <br />the overall community and community-altering changes {i.e., <br />aging pollution base, slow housing turnover, lack of available <br />housing for younger households, less diverse workforce and <br />increasing mismatch with in-city jobs); panel identification and <br />prioritization of issues affecting future development, their <br />strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; concept <br />generations; and the panels analysis of alternatives. <br />Mr. Shardlow noted that discussions identifying various <br />components of the redevelopment (i.e., possible Costco retail <br />entity to provide the economic engine). Mr. Shardlow noted <br />that given the significance of the current financial gap, it was <br />determined that it would not be useful to prepare alternatives <br />that included uses that would not contribute taxes {i.e., <br />community center) or uses for which no demand had been <br />identified (i.e., hotel/conference center). <br />Mr. Shardlow concluded his general assessment of panel <br />