PL PACKET 01182005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 21, 2004 Page 4 1 point out that this property has long been considered for redevelopment by the City and also by 2 Quest. He noted that a couple of years ago the City had included this parcel as a part of a future, 3 undefined phase for development. He explained that Quest objected, in a letter dated October 23, 4 2004, to being included in someone else's project without a date for redevelopment. He briefly 5 reviewed the objection with the Commission and provided an overview of the proposal noting 6 that they are not asking for any public assistance for this project. He stated that in taking a closer 7 look at the Engineering Report it was noted that the traffic impact would be less with the mixed 8 use. He stated that it was determined that the City water supply is adequate and capable of 9 supporting the development and storm water. He stated that the area would be 100 percent hard 10 surface and would comply with all City requirements utilizing a combination of ponding and 11 underground storage. He indicated that the sanitary sewer is a technical issue that could be 12 resolved through the normal process noting that they do not see this as a reason to hold up the 13 project. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the project based on its merit. 14 15 Joe Waters, Quest Development, stated that they have reviewed the EAW and it is their belief 16 that this project would not pose any significant issues. He noted that the projected sanitary waste 17 from the development would be an additional 7-percent and reviewed with the Commission. He 18 stated that they have been working on this project with City Staff for over two years noting that 19 the entire project would be privately funded. He explained that the units would be marketed as 20 highly affordable and cost efficient with a focus on singles, professionals and empty nesters. He 21 reviewed the transportation options available noting that one parking space would be provided 22 per unit. He stated that the pricing for the units would be between$170,000 to the low$200,000 23 range. He stated that this would be a well phased, thought out project with a relatively small 24 impact. He asked the Commission to consider recommending their project as requested. 25 26 Commissioner Jenson asked for further clarification of the requested amendment. Mr. Waters 27 stated that they are requesting an amendment to the PUD to incorporate this parcel into the 28 existing PUD and provided the Commission with an overview of the current site plan. 29 30 Chair Stromgren asked for further clarification of the objections. Mr. Beck explained that the 31 original proposal was that they be included in the land acquired in the Northwest Quadrant 32 Redevelopment Project, which would have made it impossible to finance their project. He 33 further explained that they wanted to be left out of the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment 34 Project in order to be able to pursue the redevelopment of their property independently. He 35 stated that the proposed plan was shown in phases, theirs being in the last phase, which would 36 have cost them tenants. He stated that they do not have any objections to being included in the 37 TIF District adding that they do have an objection to being redeveloped by others without having 38 any control over the process. He acknowledged that they are a part of the Apache area and the 39 City efforts to redevelop. He stated that they are asking to be included in the current PUD and 40 recognized as a part of the TIF District. He noted that they understand that they would be 41 accountable to meet all PUD requirements and reviewed with the Commission. 42 43 Chair Stromgren asked if they would benefit by being in TIF district. Mr. Beck clarified that they 44 are not asking for any City assistance for the redevelopment and reviewed funding with the 45 Commission.