12-12-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016 because of the fact that we're not hitting those investment goals that have been outlined in the 2008 plan, it's not a very hefty TIF in terms of the overall funding that it has. So, we have to be conscious of the resources that exist there and when and how to expend those, in terms of the different projects that come in. It's not just laser -focus on one (1) project. Councilmember Broden, addressing also Angela Smith, asked what the process was for moving forward with possibly revising the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mueller responded, I'd be remiss if we didn't put in a plug for the Red Tape Commission, where we go over the Code and existing plans, and take a look at what makes sense today and what doesn't. Mr. Pawlowski stated that Councilmember Davis's recommendation of reviewing plans for a given year is a natural place to start with the Comprehensive Plan revision process. He explained that any ordinance discussion of this type would always come back to the Council. Councilmember Broden asked what effect approving the PUD would have on other neighborhood plans. Mr. Pawlowski responded that the project in question would not strictly make sense in the East Bank Village, but it might make sense in the wider context of the Central Business District. He stated that he did not think it would have an adverse effect on other neighborhoods. Councilmember Broden asked the question again, this time specifically to Angela Smith and Larry Magliozzi. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 1 Vh Floor of the County -City Building, stated that there was a concern that if a decision was made that night that goes against the Comprehensive Plan or encourages a PUD in violation of the intent of the PUD district, then other developers may be able to follow the same path, and it would make it more difficult for the City Council to address those items in a way that was consistent with plan and Council precedent. Councilmember Broden asked if there was some concern or if this was a case of direct liability in a Court of Law. Ms. Smith responded that she was not an attorney. She stated that even if the intent criteria of the PUD were not met, Council would still have to look at whether or not the PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Davis asked if things like less -than- expected tax generation in the East Bank Village factors into the Area Plan Commission's decision to recommend or not recommend a proj ect. Ms. Smith responded, When we're looking at whether or not a proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, we're not looking at whether or not the financial goals for a project have been met to that plan. The overall goals of the plan stay in effect up until another plan replaces it with an amendment. Councilmember Davis asked, If a plan is only meeting one twenty -fifth (1/25) of its goals and another plan is meeting ninety -six percent (96 %) of its goals, wouldn't it be wise for Councilmembers whose plan is hitting ninety -six percent (96 %) of its goals to make sure that they are more aggressive with that plan, and the one that is hitting one twenty -fifth (1/25) of its goals you don't really have to aggressively push for? Ms. Smith responded, It's hard, in this instance, when you're talking about the financial aspect of it, because there are a lot of goals other than the financial and investment ones. The Comprehensive Plan was decided to come up with policies that are consistent with the neighborhood. The financial aspects often come into projects that would enforce those policies. Those projects are often laid out and may or may not ever come to fruition. The planning aspect is looking at the land -use matters, not the financial stuff behind the land -use matters. If it was up to the Council to evaluate these plans, looking at those might be indicators that maybe a plan is out of date, or it was not a good policy to start with. Those would be indicators to maybe go back 17