Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> June 26, 2001 <br /> Page 5 <br /> 1 would be included in their recommendations in the Concept Plans. Yet, he added, they had to <br /> 2 allow the development community to have a stake in the project with them. Mr. Rapp identified <br /> 3 other communities (Burnsville and St. Louis Park) that have gone through large-scale re- <br /> 4 development projects, who learned that being too specific on the front-end cost them time, <br /> 5 money, and choices in the end. <br /> 6 Mr. Rapp stated that their role is to get them to the point of having Concept Plans to examine, <br /> 7 but stated they will not make a recommendation to them as to which Plan they believe they <br /> 8 should choose. Then, he added, Ehlers and Associates, will represent them through the process <br /> 9 of selecting a developer, and learning the financial implications associated with the project. <br /> to Councilmember Horst asked what, specifically, would be provided them. Mr. Rapp responded <br /> 11 that they will receive the cost of the project, the implications for the city, and the feasibility in <br /> 12 the marketplace. <br /> 13 Councilmember Horst added that, looking at some of the criteria, it seems ambitious. Mr. Rapp <br /> 14 stated that the people working on the project have a tremendous amount of experience, and that <br /> 15 some of the information to be distributed at the next meeting is already prepared. <br /> 16 Mr. Rapp stated that, collaboratively, they will work with a developer on details like color of <br /> 17 brick, and placement of architectural features. Councilmember Horst added that the details have <br /> 18 bogged down this process in the past, and asked what the skeleton was going to look like. Mr. <br /> 19 Rapp indicated that there would be two Concept Plans to examine. <br /> 20 Mr. Rapp continued that there would exist criteria associated with each particular Plan, such as <br /> 21 estimated cost per square foot used in anticipating the level of development they would want to <br /> 22 see there. Mr. Rapp stated that they would need to decide on the removal of the building. He <br /> 23 added that was an implication that would be identified within the report. <br /> 24 Mr. Rapp stated that the City always has the option to do nothing, and that it was important that <br /> 25 they be aware of that. <br /> 26 Mayor Cavanaugh stated that, when they started this process, it was implied that they retained <br /> 27 DSU in order to give them a recommendation. Mr. Rapp responded that they would be giving <br /> 28 them two Concept Plans, each with pros and cons attached to them, and an indication that the <br /> 29 market would respond to both of them, but in different ways. <br /> 30 Mayor Cavanaugh asked if they were making the recommendation responsibly, considering cost <br /> 31 and feasibility. Mr. Rapp stated that they were. He added that legislature, and other things could <br /> 32 impact the recommendation but that they will put forward things and show them how they can be <br /> 33 successful and the choices that the City would need to be made. <br /> 34 Mayor Cavanaugh asked if the Market Rate for the City of St. Anthony is part of the study that is <br /> 35 fixed. Mr. Rapp stated that a fundamental part of the development process like this one must <br /> 36 have a Market Analysis attached to it. He added that any prudent developer would not move <br />