Laserfiche WebLink
• The EDA did have a robust discussion. Many topics were covered. In most situations,the EDA <br /> acknowledged there was no single clear/correct/easy way to move forward with this project,and <br /> address all individual concerns. This was a very challenging discussion for the EDA. <br /> • Some EDA members felt that this use was a good fit for this site—considering it's proximity to <br /> apartments,and the Northstar Rail. Some EDA members felt this use was a good transition user,from the <br /> apartments to traditional retail. Some EDA members believe that having a master developer/large 1- <br /> time project for this site is ideal—however,were concerned that alternative has never occurred in reality, <br /> and will likely take a long time before it ever does(if at all). Some EDA members were concerned that,to <br /> make the project work on other sites,the level of subsidy needed could not be justified. Some EDA <br /> members indicated that getting this project moving forward will result in land proceeds,jobs,tax base, <br /> will provide a good service to the community,and will generate traffic in The COR. Some EDA members <br /> believe that the several development issues with Site#1(remnant lots,Yolite,the well,etc.)are the result <br /> of previous decisions,and at some level are now a moot point—those issues are not Stone Brook issues. <br /> • Some EDA members were concerned with allowing Stone Brook on this site. This action will confirm/ <br /> solidify many development issues: remnant lots,Yolite,the well,etc. These issues limit the City's ability <br /> to market sell remaining lots(specifically,the remnant half acre lot),and will eliminate the option for a <br /> master developer to take the entire site(and deploy creative solutions to address the issues of this <br /> site). One EDA member formally opposed Site#1 for this reason. <br /> • Generally,the EDA was unclear what the City's vision was for this property. Below is their concern. <br /> What is the vision for this parcel? <br /> 1. Is the vision traditional retail,as the adopted zoning district indicates? <br /> 2. Is the vision apartments/COR-1 density,to be consistent with the block? <br /> 3. Is the vision a large, mixed-use, master planned,significant project(s),as the Planning <br /> Commission suggests? <br /> 4. Is the vision large, multi-tenant retail/commercial buildings, master planned,as the EDA has <br /> contemplated? <br /> 5. Is the vision the current COR Master Plan,which shows three individual buildings/projects,one <br /> being a daycare center. <br /> 6. Is the vision the old COR Master Plan,which shows 3-4 commercial (potentially mixed use) <br /> buildings? <br /> Page 12 of 15 <br />