HomeMy WebLinkAboutA067 - Memo to Council from City Manager asking for direction on how to proceed l � t
3143oZo
Memo
e
City Manager's Office
aring People
Quality Programs
Exceptional Service
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steven L. Schainker, City Manager
DATE: April 10, 2001
SUBJECT: Somerset Tax Abatement Approval
At your last meeting it was my impression that there was some confusion among the members of the
Council and the Developer as to the meaning of Stipulation#8 in the Somerset Urban Revitalization and
Area#7 Urban Revitalization Plans. You will recall the intent of this stipulation was to secure a
commitment from the developers of Somerset to build out village (the extent to which is in dispute) in
return for the granting of a tax abatement incentive.
It was my impression from observing your deliberations that a majority of the Council favored the
granting of a reduced tax abatement incentive for only single family detached homes and retail uses in
the commercial area if the developers would agree to complete the village concept to the boundaries of
the proposed urban revitalization areas. (See Attachment I) However, after reviewing the official action
of the Council, it became apparent that the approved wording did not reflect the intent of the majority of
the Council. The language that was approved reads, "The developers continue to develop the entire
Somerset project as shown by the City-approved preliminary plat of Somerset as a Village in accordance
with the zoning change agreement adopted or hereafter amended for the Somerset Village."
After further review, it became apparent that the reference to a preliminary plat was inappropriate. At
the time the City Council originally approved this first village concept, a Conceptual Development Plan,
and not a preliminary plat, was required. Since there is no approved preliminary plat as referred to in
Stipulation#8, then your intent to require a commitment to complete the village concept, to what ever
extent you desire, is meaningless.
As a result of this new information, the City Council should decide how you would prefer to proceed.
1) You could decide to retain the language in the stipulation that refers to a preliminary plat knowing
that the developers will not be obligated to complete any portion of the village as a condition for
receiving tax abatement.
� � 1
2) You could revise Stipulation#8 in the Somerset Urban Revitalization and Area#7 Urban
Revitalization Plans to require as a condition for tax abatement that the developers agree to complete the
village concept to the boundaries of the Somerset and#7 areas. (See Attachment I)
3) You could revise Stipulation#8 in the Somerset Urban Revitalization and Area#7 Urban
Revitalization Plans to require as a condition for tax abatement that the developers agree to complete the
village concept to the boundaries of the Conceptual Development Plan. (See Attachment II)
4) You could revise Stipulation#8 in the Somerset Urban Revitalization and Area#7 Urban
Revitalization Plans to require as a condition for tax abatement that the developers agree to complete the
village concept to some other acceptable boundaries.
It was my impression from your prior deliberations that a majority of the City Council was willing to
accept a commitment to build out the village to a lesser extent at this time (to the boundaries of the
urban revitalization areas) since the developer's request for tax abatement was scaled back to include
only single family detached homes and retail uses. In support of this position, the City Council should
follow the second option listed above.
In order to accomplish this option, the Council would pass a motion amending Stipulation#8 in the
Somerset and#7 Urban Revitalization Areas and set the date of hearing for April 24th. The Council
could then hold the hearing and pass the amended plans on April 24th.
The City Council should understand that the developer's agreement remains in effect which requires all
the land within the Conceptual Development boundaries to be developed as a village. What is involved
in this issue is the promise by the developers to continue to build out the village as a condition of
receiving a limited tax abatement incentive.
Attaehrr;nt I
I I
Somerset Subdivision - -__ __
Somerset Subdivisio
kP
°
N
Q � H-
w tp
i ;
Portion Not Included in ° ' Portion Not Induded in
Urban Revite Area Urban Revite Area tfbN.
°7
f a
e
2 i 16
Cr
Ge 7 e 9 10 11 12 � 1� i i]
is
17 16
ASPEN RD '
Ito » 2i
1e
u26 25 >7 19 20 24 29 + 2e
61 : ab
O Al
INS a,
_:
07 aE
36
---------- F a
sa
Portion Not Iwcffid►n 3 - Q a °
Urban ROO Area _ _£ = -_ �, w
as
;i a6
a
N
e0
es 67
yt 76 1 7e
O
79 ntlZ 7e
e1 -1 p d 72 so e5 97
M so Z ~ 90 n 93 i 96
1 D ,.�y� e2
12 = m 111 SRVS„'_OR N lu
11s 9` t7
BRISTOL DR m a
117 ue F 130
i ta5 142 a 143
® to tae Cvie DR
197 fae 1e1 16e 160 141 1f - F
Q 1ea d—s-
lie a �0 '�TTe D 17a 172 17o P 173 .
< pFN 1so tee u1
1r Q39 -G
�O Is
193 1*2 121 1
tt t � 17 210 206 205 207 212
G AMPTON ST =_ �a 21e 21e 221
220
ra 2te `
2G9
222 tat -. - aF
i Somerset Subdivision
I
Somerset - Urban Revitalization Area
i N
- Somerset Urban Revitalization Area
41 .um Somerset Subdivision Boundary
W E
h/ Urban Revitalization Area #7
Not Included In Somerset Urban Revite Area S
3 Map Reference Number(See Attachment)
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 200 0 200 Feet
Map prepared: 11/21/2000
to
4' . P N
o P w �
W
W
{ < W1
- n `o
, co
" w Y
n
r -
`b IL
oi
LU
1Q'ii • �S _ 3f t y e■��y c
co
4 VrNrT, �fi f
/ ^ 4 `�, �pG� la y':7 � Y S �S 2 I Z 3 � $ S j � � j 3 j 3 �� i•'� o pp �]
_
r e �% �� tiY � 2T �• p a •f r
��jj �'� � � � �% �g � � � N���u !� %�• ice\ .Yf •`
wr
:
p y 3 t N 9 E3 3 1
ey —
p co
II m ! LS
V 9 N � I Q m cnrrz311
a
b
1 ..
h •on Iltw is
av -- — — — -
un r - -
avo+i
p ( {� 0'II• t� '----- , , ,Q t� O to
L a
FR
f.
OD
76
If IV
r �yyyll
•� ^ O N ' i � � 0
r,ras�m�+ 3,rrtaaw i