Good evening. It is Monday, January 12th, and I call the Economic Development Authority meeting to order. Uh looking for a motion to adopt this evening's agenda. >> I'll make that motion. >> Moved by Bure, second by Warden. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. post. Same sign. E guys have it. Seven to zero. Um, first item business this evening is our minutes from October 13, 2020 five. And I will turn that over to Assistant Administrator Larson. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, uh, uh, EDA commission. Sorry. Um, I do have one small correction I'd like to offer up for the minutes. Uh in terms of the adjournment, uh it should read uh seconded by uh Commissioner Bureock, not uh seconded by Council Member Bureock. That was a sure typo, my part. >> Thank you for that correction. Um with that correction, looking for a motion to approve the October 13th EDA meeting minutes. Moved. >> Moved by Warden. >> Second. >> Second by Berock. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Same sign. The eyes have it. Seven to zero. Um, we have old business before us this evening. It's our downtown development. And I will turn that over to our planner, Mr. Cultus. >> Thank you, honor uh honorable chair and commissioners. Um, I wanted to bring this project back to you uh tonight uh after um a whole series of conversations with the developer and working through some of the components of this development. I'm going to talk through a little bit about where we are and then uh why we're why I'm coming back before you tonight. So, since you've last seen this project, the city had executed the purchase agreement, had completed a an additional round of environmental investigation on this property, and then um on the developers a and worked through uh the um tax increment financing certifications that are required for substrandard structures for the old museum property, certifying that the property does meet the downtown uh or the redevelopment standards. and then also working through some of the financial analysis associated with uh what ultimately will come before you as a a tiff agreement with the developer. The developer on their side had done additional soil boardings on this site. They um filled out and uh submitted a full application for site plan reviewing to plan unit development and preliminary and final plats and they gave us all of the plans with that. We've been in the process of reviewing those. We provided comments to them um in December uh based on their um on their detailed plans. And so we were kind of working towards a January planning commission meeting uh for the first kind of review and consideration of the project. I'll note also that the developer executed phase two of the purchase agreement. As you know, we have a three-phase purchase agreement. And so what I'm trying to explain is the commitment to move forward has been um has been provided by the developer and we've been kind of jointly then trying to get through some of the issues. Um also for EDA members not on council, the city did authorize feasibility study for the downtown redevelopment project which includes the public infrastructure associated with reconstructing roads, utilities, and storm water um for that downtown. So, we've we've been working on all this. Um, right around the time of our break, uh, right before the break, the um developer who's here tonight, um, Northshore and Matt Alexander reached out saying that their soil borings came back um, on this site. Um, and they provided information that they started to analyze a little bit further. And it it identified that there was quite a bit of soil that and depth of soil that would have to be removed and good soil brought back in in order to support the project that they were proposing. In light of that, they kind of stepped back a little bit and looked at is there any other way to to maybe make this soil thing work better for the project than just taking the dirt out and putting it back and then building what they had initially proposed which is an atgrade essentially structure. and they came back and said, "Uh, what if we were to excavate that soil out, but instead of putting it back, we actually create another layer of parking underneath the building um in addition to the parking layer that's already being proposed on the first floor." When we looked at that, we said, "Okay, what what else do you need?" And they said in order to make that work then financially it would be advantageous to also add a another story of rental of units so that we could take the project from 71 units to 95 units. So, we looked at it and we talked back and forth quite a bit and there's a couple of things that I think the city should consider and that's why I wanted to bring it to the EDA and just have a conversation about it so that we could give the developer direction on moving forward. With the initial submitt that they made in 71 units and only one level of parking, we um we were getting to a point where parking was not um not perfect. It worked, but it wasn't it wasn't going to create or produce additional downtown parking. It was going to essentially create enough parking for the building and enough parking on street to support the building, but not necessarily create new public parking out of all the improvements that we're talking about um with that downtown. So, that's one aspect that we were we we were probably okay with, but it's not it's not great in this proposal. Um, by adding the other additional units and then adding the second level of parking, we're increasing the the parking ratio for the project overall, which would generate then public parking spaces. So it it would generate additional public parking, meaning most of the on street uh parking spaces being created as a part of the downtown project would would be open to public and not necessarily um accounted for as a part of the the parking requirements for this building. We also looked at the tax increment financing piece of this and you've seen some initial runs, but you haven't seen kind of the where we've gotten to um with the downtown improvements that the city's considering making. Um the more money that's being generated by the tiff, the less burden it's going to put on your taxpayers. Obviously, with a more expensive building going to a higher unit count, it's going to generate then more revenue. Um, and so in the generation of more revenue, that would ultimately be revenue. The city, the developer would ask for some of that revenue, but the city's overall revenue would increase on a as a part of the project um if you were to go to the the bigger building. So, um, those two things to me are are things that were kind of stand out as it turns as as when you look at, um, what what would be the implications of the city saying, "Yeah, let's let's go ahead with a little bit higher unit count on this project. Um, we're adding one, we'd add one story to the building." We've considered over the last 15 years multiple buildings that had three stories, four stories, and five stories. We we've considered all of them. Um, and so, um, I don't know that that height's ever been something we've said is a deal breaker one way or the other. Um, but with that, I thought, you know what, given this change, before we move forward, I wanted to kind of just have this conversation on a really high level, knowing that you don't have kind of all the details, but just kind of talking through some of the considerations. Um, the developer had submitted full I mean, everything. So, we're talking civil, landscaping, lighting, building elevations, building architecture. That would all need to be changed and we would anticipate that would be changed and then we would be targeting still a February planning commission meeting um if we were able to kind of keep moving this forward. We our tiff tiff schedule and our tiff hearing for February, those are all still on schedule. Um when we noticed this given the change we changed our notifica our our um notice um our notice letter to include a higher unit which doesn't affect it in any way. We can't go down uh or we can't go we can go down we can't go up. So we went to a 95 unit um notice when we sent out our tiff notices just last week. So we still are on track for kind of all our other pieces for this project. It's just this came up. We kind of talked through it. We think there's some real valid points to consider for increasing the unit count from 71 to 95 and we just wanted to have that conversation at the EDA level before we gave any direction one way or the other. The the only other thing I'd mention is we always talk about more units in town, more rooftops. This is we don't have more land. This does get us there. We always try to balance scale, small town units with all of that and that's something that I think we'd still try to do. Um, we know that we can do a lot of that through building architecture, through building materials, through, you know, just different components. We think we can, um, offset or mitigate some of that. But, uh, with that, um, I just want to kind of throw it out. the the site plan on the screen then is the what would be really the updated site plan. And what you what you're just seen from this is kind of everything would stay the same. The footprint would stay the same, but instead of just a Maple Street entrance into the first floor parking garage, you would now have a ramp that accesses that northeast corner of the building from the back parking lot. So you'd drive in from Maple Street to the first floor and you'd drive into the underground below grade from inside the site on that ramp that goes down. So I'd be happy to talk more answer questions about it. Um like I said, the developer here tonight um he and I have met on this a couple of different times talking through some of the aspects of it. questions for staff or for the developer, >> comments, thoughts, warden, commissioner. >> Yeah. Um, I think this is a win all the way around. Uh, I think, you know, when I was reading through the packet when we got it, I think those additional, you know, 24 additional, you know, units worth of people that are buying from Quick Trip, going to Iron Exchange. Uh, I think getting, you know, we're not substantially changing. We're putting in a high-rise, you know, on this location. So, I don't think that it really changes the overall impression and scope of what we were doing here. As you mentioned, kind of trying to balance and, you know, not having it be super high density. Um, I love the second level of parking, uh, because that was always a big thing for me is that we were, you know, think going to be impacting some of the street parking for the local downtown businesses. Now, um, you know, that one minor concern, uh, I think has pretty much been alleviated. So, uh, I also think, you know, again, in looking through the steps that have been taken, it's great. It shows that the developer is really serious about this project and and moving forward. And so, uh, I can't find anything to not like about, uh, these changes. >> Thank you for the that feedback. Other comments, feedback, Mr. Hun, >> short and sweet. I agree with him all the way all the way around. It's just I think it's a win-win. We've talked in the past 34 34. This isn't some This is not a new concept. So, I'm in favor of >> Thank you. Else anything? >> So, consensus is uh we are in favor of this >> and and to move ahead the developer working. >> Okay. So yeah, our we'll uh we'll revise our schedule just on the entitlement side, but all of the TIFF stuff that's going to come before this group and the council and then the plans for planning commission and ultimately city council uh will be well we're moving forward then. So sounds great. >> Thank you. Any other business? Uh we have no new business. Any other business come before us this evening? Hearing none. Looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. Moved by Francis. >> Second. >> Second by Henrik. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. The eyes have it. Seven to zero. The EDA meetings adjourned at 7:14.