|
REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016
<br />Mr. Mueller explained that the target date for Regional Cities financing is in June 2017. When
<br />the project does not progress, the risk of money going anywhere else increases as time goes on.
<br />That is one time constraint. The Council still needs to approve the tax abatement necessary for
<br />the project's funding. The Administration wants to keep making progress and wants to keep
<br />trying to work with the developer to get to a good solution for the neighborhood.
<br />Councilmember Davis stated, Your thoughts of the tax abatement process is where your
<br />negotiation team is prepared to focus on any sound resolution, tonight.
<br />Mr. Mueller responded, I think getting clarity from Council on this matter would be helpful. If
<br />we don't have a solution tonight, the risks do go up over time.
<br />Councilmember Davis stated that the central idea of that paragraph in the Mayor's letter was that
<br />Council would need to compromise. He stated that the compromise would need to happen for not
<br />only the two (2) issues shared upfront, but also the tax abatement.
<br />Brian Pawlowski stated, In terms of the tax abatement, if you look at that paper of options and
<br />you look at, say, Option D, you can see the different assumptions that are built in there on the tax
<br />abatements. For example, if you look at Option D, it says 100 % x 10 —that would be one-
<br />hundred percent (100 %) abated over a decade. I think, as the letter lays out, we have pushed our
<br />compromise which is a ten (10) year abatement at ninety -five percent (95 %) per year for the
<br />entirety of that ten (10) years, and then an addition for increased public and green space along
<br />the Race waterway. We would be prepared to contribute an additional $1,500,000. We have been
<br />driving it after time —the numbers just simply don't end up working out. The garage obviously
<br />plays a huge role in that discussion. As the letter also makes clear, if you look at the assumptions
<br />of the other option, B —of 100% x 5 and 95% x 5— that's the assumption that we're banking in
<br />to meet financial obligations, both for Regional Cities and the overall project.
<br />Councilmember Broden asked if these options would be going through as a PUD or if the aim
<br />was to change, as soon as possible, the Comprehensive Plan, therefore having these options go
<br />through as a rezoning for the Central Business District with variances. She asked, What do you
<br />recommend with regard to the tool that we use, going forward with this?
<br />Mr. Mueller responded that, in terms of timing, the best option would be the PUD. He stated, We
<br />would prefer to get some clarity from Council on their height limit. The sooner the better. So,
<br />tonight, we have a PUD before us. We could start a process next year, should you guys prefer
<br />that process. But, as time goes on, we risk missing the deadline.
<br />Councilmember Broden asked, So, you're asking —for reasons of simplicity and timing —that it
<br />go through a PUD and that we stipulate the height based on one (1) of these options that you've
<br />provided us?
<br />Mr. Mueller responded that the Mayor had recommended in his letter his preferred option, as
<br />well as the eleven (11) story option.
<br />Councilmember Broden stated that there are district standards entailed in the PUD that the
<br />petitioner has agreed to, in the past, or has represented in his public statements. She asked, Are
<br />we prepared to go over that, tonight, and to address those and incorporate that into this PUD?
<br />Second, is the petitioner willing to abide by the design standards of the Central Business District,
<br />as outlined by the Redevelopment Commission?
<br />Mr. Pawlowski stated, Councilmember Davis, in your letter that you'd asked for, outlining some
<br />of the changes that had been made as a result of the developer's conversations with DCI as well
<br />as the APC. We had sent that outline. Some of those changes into some of the categories that
<br />you're discussing. I think the short version is yes.
<br />Councilmember Broden responded, Yeah, because I think they're about district standards and
<br />then it seems as if there was some tradeoff for height standards, or public spaces, public
<br />amenities, those types of things.
<br />Mr. Pawlowski asked, Are you referring to DCI's past decisions? The ninety -six (96) foot height
<br />limit on a previous project —I would tell you that that was an isolated project that was looked at
<br />in that circumstance. Public space, green space, and some other tradeoffs design -wise were
<br />20
<br />
|