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 />