Agenda - Economic Development Authority - 06/06/2013

Home

Chairperson Steffen expressed support for the park idea. He felt the revised site concept provided significant berming and trees adding he would like to see pine trees to provide year- round coverage as well as additional work done with the storm water ponds on the site. Member Riley asked if staff would be presenting the revised site concept to residents prior to the City Council meeting on May 28th Development Services Manager Gladhill pointed out the City Council will not be approving a zoning amendment on May 28m. Management Analyst Brama suggested sending a notification letter advising residents the EDA has reviewed the revised site concepts based on resident feedback to help mitigate resident concerns and informing them the City Council will be considering the future zoning of the site on May 28th and requesting their input and/or attendance at the City Council meeting. Member LeTourneau suggested the letter include a link to the website where residents can view detailed information regarding the proposal. Member Riley requested that the information include pertinent data from the cost benefit analysis including the property tax benefits. A resident in the audience approached the EDA and stated he was in favor of a data center versus a residential development. He also felt having a park on the site would be beneficial. Chairperson Steffen requested that staff draft a letter to residents and circulate it to the EDA for review. It was the consensus of the majority of the EDA to recommend that the City Council not pursue a residential development at this time. It was also the consensus of the majority of the EDA to recommend that the City Council not pursue the religious organization's inquiry regarding the property. 4.02: Discuss Potential Future Industrial Park Land Management Analyst Brama presented a map of potential future industrial park sites and advised that Site #1, an 87 acre parcel on the north side of Highway 10, has a willing seller and is a viable candidate. He stated that Site #2 east of the Pearson farm is not zoned correctly and it is unclear whether the owner is willing to sell the property to the City. He indicated that Site #3 and Site #4 would require significant infrastructure improvements and Site #5 has a willing seller and infrastructure improvements in place, however the zoning is not correct. He stated that Site #6, owned by the State, is a unique site with infrastructure and zoning in place and the City has worked with the MPCA in the past and received word the agency is not willing to sell the site for future industrial development. Economic Development Authority/May 16, 2013 Page 5 of 7