Laserfiche WebLink
4.01: Consider Purchase Agreement for a Portion of Lot 1,Lot 2, and Lot 3,Block 1, COR <br /> TWO; Case of ALDI(Portions may be closed to the public) <br /> Economic Development Manager Sullivan presented the staff report. <br /> Member Olson asked for more details on the difference in the right of re-entry as proposed <br /> compared to what the City typically does. <br /> Economic Development Manager Sullivan explained that generally speaking the City has the <br /> position that it does not want to sell land for speculative purposes and wants to see the specific <br /> project constructed within a period of time. He stated that through that agreement, if the project <br /> does not move forward, the City would get the land back. He reviewed different stipulations that <br /> have been included on past agreements,noting that Aldi was not willing to accept the typical terms. <br /> Chairperson MacLennan referenced the 24 months versus 12 months and asked if that is <br /> specifically related to potential delays in materials, as the presentation stated that the applicant <br /> would anticipate completion of the project this year. <br /> Economic Development Manager Sullivan confirmed that staff does not anticipate that the build <br /> would take more than one year, but this additional time would provide flexibility if there were <br /> issues with supply chain relating to construction materials. <br /> Member Riley stated that the restrictions were mentioned and asked why this would be a better <br /> deal for the City than previous deals such as the McDonalds deal. <br /> Economic Development Manager Sullivan stated that national retailers typically have use <br /> restrictions to ensure that a similar use is not constructed directly adjacent. He stated that the use <br /> restriction would also help to ensure that intensive uses do not spill over on parking or that would <br /> not be consistent with the values of Aldi. He provided details on the negotiations between Aldi <br /> and the City on the use restrictions. He noted that Aldi does value its parking and therefore does <br /> not want to have spill over parking or transient uses in the parking areas. He stated that the PA <br /> did involve a lot of negotiation back and forth and some concessions were given by both parties. <br /> Member Riley commented that the use restrictions of McDonalds were very broad and restrictive, <br /> whereas this seems most suited to what Aldi and the City would both want. He commented that <br /> this seems to make more sense for the City. <br /> Economic Development Manager Sullivan clarified that these restrictions would be solely for the <br /> one-acre remnant and the City could still bring in whatever desired development on other parcels <br /> in the area. <br /> Member Wiyninger stated that it is his understanding that the City would retain ownership of the <br /> one-acre remnant for future sale. He noted that it appears there would be shared parking and <br /> therefore some cooperation would be needed in the future and asked how that would be addressed. <br /> Economic Development Authority/February 9. 2023 <br /> Page 2 of 9 <br />