Laserfiche WebLink
and the City has been unsuccessful in attracting a big box retailer to this location. Both Capstone and Centra are <br />proposing quality products that will generate significant tax revenue and will result in an increase of population <br />density in the COR. <br />Staff believes that both developers have brought forth complete, competitive proposals. Staff (including <br />Planning Staff) does have some concerns with the request by Capstone Homes for reduced Park <br />Dedication Fees and a housing product that is not compliant with the COR Framework standards. Staff <br />also has some concerns with the ability to get Wetland 2 declared incidental which would reduce the <br />amount of units in the Capstone 130 unit development. <br />The EDA should consider the following questions and formulate a recommendation to the City Council: <br />1) Is the EDA supportive of the proposed single family residential development on Parcel 46 instead of waiting <br />for a large format commercial user or other development type? <br />2) Does the EDA like the housing product and layout that is being proposed in the COR? <br />3) Is the EDA supportive of a zoning change from a COR Zoning District to COR 2A, COR 2B or R-2? <br />4) Is the EDA supportive of a housing product that is not compliant with COR Framework? <br />5) Is the EDA supportive of a reduction in Park Dedication Fees to support affordability as referenced in the <br />Capstone proposal? <br />6) Are the economics of each project sufficient to make a recommendation to the City Council? <br />7) Are there any counter offers the EDA are willing to make? <br />8) Is the EDA comfortable with Staff drafting a Purchase Agreement using the terms included in the packet with <br />the selected developer(s) for City Council consideration without bringing it back to the EDA? <br />If the EDA is comfortable moving a housing project forward, Staff would like to see a recommendation by the <br />EDA to select a developer and project and make that recommendation to the City Council. In the event that a <br />decision cannot be made to select one developer, Staff would ask the EDA to provide detailed <br />comments/suggestions for the City Council to consider at Work Session to help select a developer. <br />Alternatives: <br />1) Motion to recommend to the City Council to select (Insert Developer) and execute a Purchase Agreement with <br />the terms included in the Developers proposal <br />2) Motion to recommend to the City Council to select (Insert Developer) and execute a Purchase <br />Agreement with negotiated terms recommend by the EDA <br />3) Motion to recommend rejection of the attached offers and hold the land for future development <br />4) Motion to provide comments and recommendations on each proposal to the City Council to be further <br />discussed at a City Council Work Session <br />5) Something else <br />Funding Source: <br />N/A <br />Recommendation: <br />Based on discussion <br />Outcome/Action: <br />Alternatives: <br />1) Motion to recommend to the City Council to select (Insert Developer) and execute a Purchase <br />Agreement with the terms included in the Developer's proposal <br />2) Motion to recommend to the City Council to select (Insert Developer) and execute a Purchase <br />Agreement with negotiated terms recommended by the EDA <br />3) Motion to recommend rejection of the attached offers and hold the land for future development <br />4) Motion to provide comments and recommendations on each proposal to the City Council to be further <br />discussed at a City Council Work Session <br />