Laserfiche WebLink
EDA Meeting#34 <br /> • April 14, 1997 <br /> Page 2 <br /> She proceeded to briefly summarize various sections of the agreement. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Trude to Approve Resolution No.97-EDA-63,Approving and <br /> Authorizing the Execution of a Development Assistance Agreement with Kenmark Partnership,LLC. <br /> VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br /> B. Consideration of Resolution No.97-EDA-64,Adopting the Highway 10,Section 9 Redevelopment <br /> Plan as Proposed by SRF Consulting Group,Inc. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No.97-EDA-64,Adopting the Highway 10, <br /> Section 9 Redevelopment Plan as Proposed by SRF Consulting Group,Inc. <br /> Ms.Trude stated she feels SRF Consulting Group did a fine job on the plan,however she had one problem <br /> with a section and would like to adopt the plan in all parts except in reference to Parcels 1,2 and 3. She stated <br /> the purpose for this is that the City Council just adopted an ordinance keeping day care facilities out of areas <br /> within 200 feet of highway traffic and this would follow that plan in keeping children out of unhealthy <br /> conditions. It would also use the economic corridor for business opportunities which have a higher tax base. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Stigney to amend the plan and go with the"if then"scenario for Parcels 1,2 and 3 <br /> on land use. <br /> • Mr.Patrick Peters of SRF Consulting Group,Inc.noted that this plan is to be used only as a guideline and <br /> provides direction in making policies. This should be used as a tool for when developers come in to evaluate <br /> the various elements in trying to decide what is appropriate for different areas. However,it was their feeling <br /> that the residential scenario made the most sense from an access standpoint and also from balancing the benefit <br /> that will come to the multi-family as well as mutual benefit that comes through the EDA/PTW properties on the <br /> corner. He would suggest that the plan be adopted as it is and only use it to weigh the applications. <br /> Ms.Trude stated the plan refers to community input meetings and yet she knows that many people in that area <br /> are concerned that something not be allowed in that area which will create an impact on their neighborhood and <br /> she feels multi-family and condensed housing would do so. Furthermore,whatever the council endorses with <br /> the plan will very much guide the Planning Commission and staff. <br /> A discussion followed. Ms.Trude stated she would be more comfortable with the word"accepting"in the <br /> resolution,than the word"approving". <br /> Commissioners Trude and Stigney asked that their Motion/Second be withdrawn. <br /> Commissioners Quick and Koopmeiners accepted the amendment to the Resolution,changing the word <br /> "approving"in the resolution caption to the word"accepting",and also in the 8th paragraph of the resolution, <br /> changing the word"approves"to"accepts". <br /> VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br /> REPORTS: <br /> Report of EDA Board Members: <br />