Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting — 07/12/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 24 <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed her confusion as to whether the <br />proposed residential in the area required a large retail with an <br />anchor, or just a residential support center, noting the Master <br />Developer's previous comments that they would not proceed <br />with the housing component without the retail component to <br />make the redevelopment project financially feasible, and <br />questioned the planning perspective and logic in this thought <br />process. <br />Mr. McCombs responded to Councilmember Ihlan in the <br />context for commercial development to generate tax increment <br />to make a project doable; opining that housing without a retail <br />anchor might work, but with the land acquisition and site <br />remediation costs, it probably wouldn't close the financial gap <br />sufficiently to make the project succeed. <br />Mayor Klausing recommended that this level of discussion be <br />held at a later date among Councilmembers to allow fitrther <br />input from the consultants and panel members tonight. <br />Councilmember Kough questioned how the anchor remained <br />profitable when it required a trade area drawn from a 15 — 30 <br />mile radius. <br />Mr. McCombs noted that, when a trade area study was <br />performed, primary sales from existing customers (those <br />already coming into the area for other purposes) represented 7- <br />% of sales, thus not significantly creating additional traffic. <br />Ms. Bujold opined that, while the neighborhood retailers were <br />amenities sought by those in the housing market within walking <br />distance, in order to accomplish the overall development, a <br />larger traffic generator (i.e., "big box" retailer) was needed. <br />Recess Recess <br />Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at 8:Q9 p.m. and <br />reconvened at 8:19 p.m. <br />7. Twin Lakes Redevelopment Project: Comments from Twin Lakes <br />