Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Block B & D Discussion <br />Chair Zisla was in favor of discussing the design master plan for NBE. <br /> <br />Mr. Mueller and Mr. Hankinson provided comment on the best uses for Block B. It was noted office <br />industrial would be the best fit for this block. A multi-story office option was reviewed with the EDC. <br />The expense of structured parking was discussed. It was noted that surface parking would greatly <br />reduce the construction and piling expenses for Block B. <br /> <br />Planner Gundlach provided a brief report on the TIF available for Blocks B & D. She indicated the <br />EDC would have to consider its goals for the site before considering how much assistance should be <br />offered through TIF. <br /> <br />Chair Zisla commented that one option would be to never develop Block B given the expense to develop <br />this site. He requested that discussion shift to Block D. <br /> <br />Mr. Mueller discussed the potential uses for Block D and believed that a future call center would be the <br />perfect fit for this site. He indicated that this site had fewer obstacles, which would assist with future <br />development. <br /> <br />Planner Gundlach agreed stating an industrial flex use would be a good fit for Block D. She explained <br />that staff would continue to balance the vision for this site with market demands. She believed that <br />industrial flex would meet a lot of the same goals as office. <br /> <br />Commissioner Benke supported the City moving forward with the suggested changes from staff. He <br />asked if a trucking terminal would be good fit for this site. Mr. Mueller stated this may not be a good fit <br />for a second ring suburb. <br /> <br />Commissioner Murlowski supported the office/industrial flex proposal for Blocks B and D. He <br />discussed the changes that have occurred in the economy over the past seven years. He wanted to see <br />the City keep all options open and available for future developers. <br /> <br />Commissioner Garcia-Perez indicated she was not a part of the original visioning process for the NBE. <br />She asked what the cost was to the City to wait to develop Blocks B and D. Mr. Suarez stated the cost <br />to the City would be the TIF impacts or the risk versus rewards for the development of these blocks. <br />Planner Gundlach provided further comment on the TIF implications for Blocks B and D. She believed <br />that the City would be able to meet its debt obligations for Blocks B and D when they develop. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding the New Brighton Exchange Financial Dashboard. <br /> <br />Commissioner Benke understood that staff was recommending the City move forward with the plan. He <br />questioned what this would entail. Planner Gundlach discussed the pros and cons of moving forward <br />with a RAP for Block B, absent an actual development. She noted that a detailed RAP may assist with <br />the City receiving grant funding while also pushing future projects through in a more timely manner. <br />Mr. Mueller explained that a RAP may be costly, but could assist the City move forward with real <br />projects. <br /> <br />A commissioner stated the City should do its homework but did not support the completion of a RAP as <br />this may not fit with future clients’ needs. <br /> <br />The pros and cons of completing a RAP were further discussed by staff, the EDC members and <br />consultants. <br />