Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> I <br />I <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Member LeToumeau stated that as a business owner on the comer he could represent <br /> · . . <br />feelings of both businesses and the EDA ~n their desire to help the-area survive and mak~'it <br />better. He feels the information from this survey will be great information nOt onl: <br />businesses but to determine what could come in and work. The surve3 to <br />move forward. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated he thinks the survey .will provide the- <br />allow and encourage commercial nodes to exist· ' <br /> <br />Member Kiefer reiterated that this will provide statistical data:~[ k r~e assumption that the <br />comer is worth renovating, or provide facts that indicate ta~s~!~h~'ould begin to try and relocate <br />the businesses there. With this information if a develope[:~es in and wants to invest or do a <br />redevelopment project, the EDA and the City will be make g ecisions. ' <br /> <br />Member Kurak added she would imagine the informati°n~e~'5~romote the comer. <br />She added that while she understands the value of the informat~gfie doesn't want to repeat, · <br />and pay again, for what has already een done. <br /> <br />Member LeToumeau recommended.~ forward but having staff re t might be <br />duplication of the previous study..:--:~:?hi~Ied:the Committee to keep i that the <br />McComb Group has already dOn~':~°m~:of the ~E;and a new compan uld be starting fi:om <br /> <br />Member Kiefer indicated the proposed amfi'unt i.n61:fides dollars~:~0r the McComb Group to work <br />with KKE Architects. rf the decision is to g~laf~¢that piece of':i~;~'those dollars should fall out. <br /> <br />Motion by Member Kiefer;-seconded by Member G?mberg, to recommend to City Council that <br />they moveahead with the ffi:Oa-ket analysis cont~geh~;;'bn staff meeting with the McComb Group <br />to negoti~ite' a more cost dffect proposal by t~ into account the work they've previously <br /> <br />Motion carriedi'¢ VOted Yes: Chairperson Riley, Members Kiefer; Gromberg, Kurak, Steffen, <br />.and Strommen. V6~g No: None. Member LeTourneau abstained. <br /> <br />Case #3: Gross!einBe~,er/~ge Property/Bulow Inc. Property <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wal& :s~:~ited Grosslein Beverage owns the vacant parcel located next to <br />Comfort Suites. The parcel is zoned commercial and Duke Grosslein, owner of Grosslein <br />Beverage, is. interested in developing the site with a.restaurant. <br /> <br />The subject property is approximately 1.9 acres in size and contains a large drainage pond that <br />was design'ed to handle the drainage from Comfort Suites and any development on the subject <br />vacant property. Due to the large drainage pond, the site does not provide for adequate space for <br />parking and a restaurant facility. <br /> <br />Economic Development Authority / January 13, 2003 <br /> Page 5 of. 8 <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br /> <br />