Minutes - Council Work Session - 11/09/2004 - Special

Home

made calculations based on the current proposed master plan of what the square footage development in the core area is, what parking demand they have, and what that basic number is. What they do not have any control over is what happens if it changes. The motivation was to not allow the core to be a low intensity development area, but to be a high intensity area. The motivation from the City standpoint was to create a lot of value from the core. As they proceed with Paragraph No. 6 they could discuss the budget. Secondly they can discuss what parking would be available to what type of business and what impact that would have on their payment. That would help clarify the position on the impact to the core area. Councihnember Kurak suggested along with that they should remove the City Hall portion, because that will not be taxed. They will then have a net area of what will be taxed, and it should be determined what income is coming in from this area merely from property tax. These property taxes should be able to pay for some of this. She inquired what is needed to move this along. Mr. Bray explained this contemplates putting together a draft document that would give the City the right to impose charges on properties in the core area for parking maintenance without addressing how that charge will be determined. That will need to be determined before this document can be drafted. If this is a concept that they want to work with, there is a question of if they cap it, tie it to the per square foot value of the property, or if they tie it to the number of parking spaces the business needs based on zoning requirements. Cotmcilmember Elvig stated RTC's plan for a parking lot in Outlot D was against the City's understanding of structured parking. The hope was that putting in structured parking in Outlot D could reduce the need for surface parking in Outlot C. Mr. Lasher explained the indication from RTC was that the parking costs cmmot be unilaterally spread across all of the commercial area. Shingobee Development will refuse to pay those costs. It does not mean, however, that they cannot assign the costs to other parcels that would show benefit. Counci[member Elvig asked if Outlot C is owned by Shingobee Development. Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon responded in the affirmative. Councihncmber Elvig stated they do not want to unduly burden any properties. He suggested the costs be spread to where it is feasible and comfortable. Mr. Nedcgaard stated Shingobee Development is plmming to put a drag store on the comer of Outlot C, and these customers would not use the parking ramp. Mr. Martinson stated the bank purchased two acres in Outlot A for their building, and these customers would not park in the ramp. City Council Special Work Session/November 9, 2004 Page 5 of 11