Laserfiche WebLink
showing an alternate recommendation. The term "commercial" on the <br />existing plan is confusing. I do not believe that commercial is <br />intended to be "retail sales" in all places. The area south of 4th <br />Street and north of I-94 and west of Ideal Avenue is more suitable <br />for office/corporate headquarters with a large employment base than <br />it is for retail commercial uses. Although the area is accessible, <br />it is not convenient to access. Commercial retail uses may be <br />appropriate near County Road 13 and I-94 and in the northerly area <br />along I-694 and 10th Street and Helmo Avenue. Residential land uses <br />are appropriate east of Helmo Avenue and south of the loth Street. <br />The balance of the area should be planned for corporate headquarter, <br />offices and limited industrial park. <br />City Council Action <br />I do not believe it is too late for the City to work with the <br />property owners within the MUSA line. The following action is <br />recommended: <br />1. The City Council has to agree to work together with the <br />property owners. A two-thirds majority vote of the City <br />Council will be necessary for development to occur. <br />2. The Land Use Concept Plan for the MUSA area should be amended <br />to allow greater flexibility. <br />3. The City should work with a financial consultant to consider <br />financing alternatives for infrastructure including but not <br />limited to tax increment financing and deferred assessments. <br />This plan may also include a phasing plan extending sewer, <br />water and storm sewer over some period of time. <br />4. The City should call a meeting with the property owners in <br />the MUSA area to: <br />a. Review the Land Concept Plan. <br />b. Review a infrastructure phasing plan. <br />C. Review a financing plan. <br />8 <br />James R. Hill, inc. <br />