12-12-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016 ones that revitalize this TIF and really put dollars in the pocket to do even more in the future that hopefully comes before you. Councilmember Ferlic announced that the Council portion for questions was closed. At this point, each Councilmember in a line would offer one (1) final comment. No Councilmember would be revisited. Only after each Councilmember had given their comment would the Council entertain any motions. Councilmember Scott asked everyone to respect each person who has the floor. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston stated that with projects brought to the Council there are so many loose ends. This begs for the due diligence of Council and the search for options that could satisfy a given project and policy. These issues of process mean that if the Council says no to a developer that they may not seem friendly to development in general. She stated that it felt like it was up to Council to make sure that things were done in line with the law. She stated that petitioners should be held accountable for making sure that they are doing what they need to do, so that these questions don't end up in Council's lap. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated that she had issues with this moving forward as a PUD and was hoping for a different way to proceed. She stated that the Council Attorney had warned that this would put Council in danger of liability; that the decision could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. She stated that there were really great ideas brought forth at the last minute, and that that was not the way to make big decisions. She found the proposal hard to support as is. Councilmember Randy Kelly stated that this was supposed to be in Council's lap, that it was time to make a decision. He did not feel that information was presented to the Council at the eleventh (1 Ith) hour. He stated that consultants were brought in to present options, but none of them were viable because the City does not have $12,600,000 in TIF to build the garage. Many have said that the project would be better on the other side of the river — Councilmember Kelly stated that that was not a good enough reason to turn down a $50,000,000 project. He stated that Mr. Matthews did a good job of making the project feasible. He stated that the 2008 East Bank Plan opened with the recognition of the fact that there had been no development in the area up to that point, and that was the reason for the plan in the first place. He stated that that means that there have been nearly two (2) decades of little development in the East Bank. Here is a chance, he stated, to let in a $50,000,000 development. There needs to be a first twelve (12) story building. He thought that a bridge between the east and the west of the river would be good. Councilmember Jo Broden stated that the unique flavor of the East Bank will fall with this project because of the choice to go up rather than out; that it would negate the community- building effort of the creation of the East Bank Plan. She argued that a distinction between the east of the river and the west of the river was a good thing. She stated that the project's height was egregious and that it would be a game- changer for the rest of the district. She argued that though it provides for long- desired needs, there should not be this level of separation between the vision that has been expressed through the East Bank Plan and the proposed project's features. She felt that it was problematic that she received a message from Mr. Matthews on the evening of Sunday, December 11, 2016 and received another on the Council table, yet the public was not privy to these messages in advance. She stated that there has been no compromise on height until twelve (12) hours prior to the current Council meeting. She stated, We can hit density or tax dollar targets, but how do we get there —up or out? She argued that the nature of the neighborhood suggested that building out was the solution. If the future of the neighborhood is to be redirected, she stated, it should be in a collective way instead of by way of development plans. She stated, We can do better. The plan should still be around after this decision, she concluded. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated that the Council once passed on University Park Mall because it did not seem to fit the plan, and that did not work out for the City. The Hall of Fame was built, and yet did not really work out for the City, either. He stated that the City has been crying for people to bring in private money and development so that the City does not have to use TIF or raise taxes so that the City does not spend on plans. He asked, What do you do with a plan that is ten (10) years old with one (1) building to show for it in that district? He stated that a plan can be well- intentioned and unviable at the same time. He argued that some discretion should be left to the developers to determine if they can make a project profitable. He stated, I 24