Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Steffen, Members Cords, MacLennan, Howell, Olson, <br />and Riley. Voting No: None. Absent: Member Johnson. <br />4.03: Review West Armstrong Redevelopment Plans and Discuss Opportunities for <br />Strategic Acquisition to Preserve Redevelopment Vision (Portions of meeting may be <br />closed to the public) <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan presented the staff report. <br />Member Riley commented that five parcels were identified and asked how many of those were <br />willing sellers. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan stated that as it sits, he is aware of willing sellers for <br />parcels four, two and one. He stated that there is a sign north of parcel four, but he has not spoken <br />to that property owner. He stated that from a development standpoint and attempting to make <br />commercial and retail development viable it would make sense to cleanup that area. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that in conversations with property owners, the majority <br />of property owners have purchased the properties in that area with development opportunity and <br />would appreciate that the area be cleaned up. He stated that the code enforcement issues and <br />complaints are detracting from multi-millions dollar investment. He stated that the Planning <br />Commission is reviewing a proposal tonight next to the brand-new building for a tree clearing <br />company that would like to shred the trees onsite and have a mound of woodchips. He stated that <br />is the type of interest that is coming forward and therefore the question is how aggressive the City <br />would like to be to clamp down on those non-desirable uses. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen asked why the piece adjacent to Bunker Lake Boulevard and the two parcels <br />south of that are not included. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan commented that when a City gets involved in a <br />redevelopment project, the associated costs are to clear the sites and prepare them for development <br />and therefore that was the focus. He commented that the other sites are also good but believed <br />that if sewer and water were run into that area that many parcels would more likely develop under <br />open market. He stated that the sites mentioned in the case are more challenging and therefore it <br />would be recommended that the City be involved in order to help achieve the vision. He <br />commented that the end goal is not for the City to own land but to bring forward development and <br />job creation. He stated that sometimes the City needs to be involved in order to bring about that <br />development, but if the sites could be developed without the City being involved, he would not <br />recommend the City purchase property just because there is a willing seller. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen commented that it seems there are two parts to the case, cleaning up blight <br />and identifying future industrial land. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan confirmed that they are separate issues, but they are <br />interrelated. He stated that there will not be an appetite for people to acquire parcels that could <br />not be developed. He stated that if the City purchased all of the sites, razed all the buildings, and <br />Economic Development Authority/ April 8, 2021 <br />Page 8 of 12 <br /> <br />