My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006.10.16 EDA Packet
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
EDA
>
EDA Agenda/Packets
>
2006 EDA Packets
>
2006.10.16 EDA Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:35:47 PM
Creation date
8/24/2017 1:35:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
10/16/2006
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
EDA
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
meeting on the coverage test and building inspections and requested direction from the <br /> EDA related to proposed TIF boundary. <br /> CD Intern gave an overview of the attached map and building inspections. CD Director <br /> talked about the building inspection process and the time it takes to complete the reports. <br /> He also stated that we are still working on what is going to happen in regards to the <br /> Lavalle parcel and the new County road. <br /> Miron asked if staff thinks the TIF District would be challenged and what would happen <br /> if it did. <br /> Bever asked CD Director if he thinks the City will be able to count the Lavalle parcel as <br /> occupied. <br /> CD Director stated staff does not think this would be challenged. He used Richfield as an <br /> example of one that was challenged because they condemned land and the city is not <br /> condemning land for the proposed TIF District. He stated that the Lavalle parcel being <br /> deemed occupied is important to the proposed TIF District. If it is not considered <br /> occupied the district will not meet the coverage test and may have to be removed from <br /> the proposed district. He stated that staff and consultants are still working on this issue. <br /> Granger asked about the Stock Lumber site and the accessory structures on the property. <br /> He also asked about the 145th Street property owners. <br /> CD Intern stated that the building inspectors just inspected the Stock Lumber site and that <br /> the accessory structure will not be used in the building inspection reports. There were <br /> calls made to the remaining property owners that did not respond to the letters sent about <br /> the building inspections. Some of them were on 145th Street and they either did not call <br /> back or stated that they did not want the inspection done on their property. <br /> Arcand asked if there were still developers interested in developing in the downtown <br /> area. <br /> CD Director stated that we still get calls from developers and business owners that that <br /> would like to be located in the downtown. <br /> Klein asked if we should be thinking about a bigger TIF district that would include <br /> County Road 8. <br /> Miron stated that we need to think about what property would develop on its own and <br /> what area would need some encouragement. <br /> Denaway stated that it seems as though that County Road 8 is developing on its own. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.