09-23-1996 EDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� ' / 1� � � �� ;`V fj I'� � o:.,.., , , `�� ..� � �� ti � ,�_. EDA Meeting #26 August 12, 1996 Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PUBLIC HEARTNGS: There were no Public Hearings scheduled for this meeting. EDA BUSINESS: A. Consideration of Authorizing Wetland Delineation Study for Highway 10 Redevelopment Area Section 7. Ms. Bennett explained that Pam Sheldon and hei•self inet with developers who have indicated an interest in development of property directly across Highway ] 0 fi•om City Hall. It is her feeling that development of this property would have a major impact on the future direction of the redevelopment of Highway 10. She noted that the property does have a large wetland and she has discussed the impact of the wetland on the possibility of development with Rocky Keehn of SEH. The wetland a►•ea is based on the National Wetland Inventory Maps and not a site delineation. Mr. ICeehn has suggested that the wetland be delineated so that the city will 1<now how much of the property can actually be developed. Additionally, once a delineation is made, the city can review how a development will impact the city's Local Water Management Plan. Ms. Bennett suggested that the city pursue delineation of the property to assist in the future development marlcet for the properiy. The proposed cost is estimated to be $1,500, which would be funded through existing tax increment administrative revenues. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Blanchard to Authorize SEH to Perform a Wetland Delineation Study for Highway 10 Redevelopment Area Section 7, to be funded through existing tax increment administrative revenues. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried B. Consideration of Resolution No. 96-�DA-51, Authorizing the Economic Development Commission to Worlc on a Request for Proposal and Solicit Bids for the Development of a Vision and Schematic Plan for Highway 10 Redevelopment Area Section 9. Ms. Bennett noted that in Apt•il tlie Economic Development Authority looked at different development sections along Highway 10 and identiiied three priority areas. Section 9 is located from County Road I to Silver Lake Road. Ms. Bennett stated she had met with the Economic Development Commission to strategize how to proceed with the development of Section 9. At that meeting, they discussed whether the city should continue spot development or if they should be loolcing at the entire section for coordinated development. The Economic Development Commission would lilce direction from the EDA to proceed with requests for proposals for this section of Highway 10 and to develop a vision and schematic plan on what could be developed in that area. Ms. Bennett proceeded to outline the process schedule if the EDA authorizes the EDC to proceed as requested. Ms. Blancllard noted that several plans have been worked out on Highway 10 projects in previous years. She wondered if it was feasible to complete another study at this time.