Community Development Block Grant Committee - Abolished 5.11.2017 - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the February meeting of the redevelopment authority of the City of La Crosse. Welcome to those joining in person and those joining online. We will get started with our agenda for this evening. We'll start with approval of our minutes, and look for a motion and a second for approval. Motion from Phil. Second? Second by councilmember Jansen. Any questions, comments on the January meeting minutes as presented? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion aye or thumbs up? All opposed, same sign? Alright. Motion Motion carries. Thank you. We'll

start

our agenda tonight with twenty six-one hundred eighty five, the monthly update from the project manager for River Point District. I'll turn it over to Jason Gilman. Jason, welcome. The floor is yours.

Thank you, mister chairman, and good evening, Redevelopment Authority. Appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about the previous month and some of the activities that have been going on. We, of course, have been working on the continued responses to the request for expressions of interest that we sent out last October. So there's been coordination on Lots 1 And 2 And 11 And 12, part of which you're going to be looking at this evening on the agenda. We continue to get interest from other entities too.

I've had conversation with MSP who built the Driftless project. They finished their marketing, report, and it was a very positive, outcome that basically, had them looking at additional real estate in River Point District. So we're, exploring that right now. I've been in contact with Brian Woolsley from, MSP. In addition, we've been doing some other, work that's tangential to the development, which includes, Andrea and I have been coordinating with the Urban Land Institute on the spring meeting that we're going to be presenting at, but they're also working on that renter economic stability program, and we should be hearing back from them any day now.

I haven't heard back from them yet this week, but I expect to hear back from them this week if they'll provide matching funds to the community foundation grant to put that program together. We also did a presentation to the Valley View Rotary Club, and I've got another one coming up for the chamber leadership group later this later in March. And then we've got continued engagement with the University of Wisconsin student that's studying health metrics and the health outcomes of River Point District. I expect that I'll be meeting with her and professor either the end of this week, tomorrow, or midweek next week. And one of the things that I told Andrea that I would do this year is engage B Visions videography.

That's Bailey Nelson down on Pearl Street. So I've I had a sit down meeting with him, and I'll be working he'll he'll be working as a subcontractor for me, but with the direction of Andrea under my contract. So I'm not I'm not gonna come and ask for more money from the RDA. I'm just gonna have Bailey put together this videography piece. And the purpose of that is really to highlight the activity in River Point District to look at both the interior and exterior, now that all the streetscaping is done to highlight that, but also to highlight those public health metrics that Lauren Steen and Jeremy Arnie at University of Wisconsin La Crosse are are working on.

And that'll be a building block piece. So in other words, they'll do the videography at this point in time, but as we've got, you know, three or four new projects starting in '26 and more in '27, he'll be able to modify that video piece as we go. And that'll also be a valuable piece for us to present to the Urban Land Institute. I'm also continuing to field calls from people that want to live in River Point District. I had a conversation with a couple from South Carolina this morning Mhmm. That are looking at moving here because their daughter lives in Houston, Minnesota. And I work

tonight, Mike.

It's a deal.

Appreciate it. Have a number of different number of different contact people that I put in the RDA report on the very last page that they can reach out to so that they can decide, you know, which of the projects they'd like to move into. And War Eagle, I understand, is already one

floor feel better.

One floor was open to occupancy. And so we've got MSP. The Driftless is open, of course, and now War Eagle is open. And Reiche's project on Lot 8, the lofts, will be ready for occupancy later this year. I think those are the main pieces that I wanted to bring up today.

There is one more thing just as a precursor to your consideration of Lots 1 And 2 And 11 And 12, today. I just wanted to note that the PDD, the plan development district master plan that shows Lots 11 And 12, the waterfront lots, had originally, showed an illustration that indicated single story buildings, with some parking fields. And in fact, Lot 11, if you look at the original illustration in the PDD, it showed two single story buildings separated by a surface parking lot. Lot 12, which is the southernmost waterfront lot, showed about 50% of the built the the site being occupied by a building and the other 50% remaining green space. The whole intent of the PDD was to activate the site with uses that would be complementary to that parkway that's being planned by the city parks department.

So, the idea that here we are today with a proposal to actually have two buildings on Lot 11, one that, you know, has a very active, type of use, for the parkway. And then even with the challenges on Lot 12 with geotechnical, Raiki is still looking at whether or not they could possibly put a building on part of that lot. So it's really very it's sort of somewhat surprisingly close to the original PDD illustration that was adopted. Also wanted to just mention on Lots 1 And 2 that when you look at the PDD language from north to south, the northern lots, which are the ones closest to Causeway, did anticipate lower densities. So that was something that, fits very nicely with the the city's housing plan and the interest that the planning department has with missing middle housing.

And, and I I I also attended the Seven Rivers Alliance meeting, yesterday or day before in La Crescent, Minnesota, and, they had a couple housing experts from the area that have been looking at building affordable housing. So I'm kinda getting a handle on, you know, what just what is missing middle housing, what is affordability, what are we able to build. And to give you an idea, habitat, Kaya Fox, did a 10 unit project of single family homes in Hillsboro. Each of those homes, are $300,000, which you might say, well, that's quite a bit of money. It is.

I mean, historically, that's a lot for a single family home, but that's that's that's their mark for affordable single family homes these days because of how expensive it is, you know, for the the construction inflation. So it just gives you a little bit of a sense of what we're looking at and how that compares to some of the housing we're delivering in River Point District. That's all I have.

Jason, thank you. Members, questions for Jason on this one's report? Yeah. Phil, go ahead.

Thank you. My fellow members probably know some of this stuff already, but I have a couple of questions. The first one is, under partnership activity, you have energy system energy systems coordination. I I don't know what that means exactly.

I'm sorry. I left that out of my my remarks. Thank you, Phil. Andrea and I, we we were contacted by a lady named Kathleen who works for Ethos Power in Baroque, and they provide solar installations of all types. Over time, we have investigated everything from geothermal to microgrids to to to this type of solar.

She provided a really nice short presentation on how solar could be installed, particularly in that area between Lots 11 And 12 and and the outlot and the parkway, which could not only help save energy costs for the developers, but also for the parkway lighting and other facilities that are being developed. So we're we're continuing to have conversation with her about that proposal and whether or not it would be feasible and just, you know, what the out the capital outlay would cost and then what is the pay payoff period, and how does that deliver energy credits to the to the developers.

So you have continuing conversations with developers about this?

Yeah. In fact, I just sent out the Ethos proposal to Lee Harems at Reiki this this week.

Okay. Thank you. I have another question. I hate to hold the spotlight. So I took a walk, a couple hours worth of walk, and I was disturbed by a little bit a little bit by what I saw. For one, there were obviously a lot of weeds that had not been taken care of. They were, of course, dead now, but and there's more more than enough trash laying about. So I'm wondering if there's gonna be some landscaping efforts this year.

Yeah. That's a good question. There's there's kind of two parts to that. One is that the short Elliott Hendrickson, design for the streetscaping in the area along Riverbend Drive was very much naturalized landscaping. So what might appear to be weeds is actually prairie landscaping, and we, the the management plan for that, requires a mow a mowing regiment, but not it's not like a bluegrass lawn.

It gets mowed a couple times a year to keep the invasive weeds down, but keeps the prairie plants healthy. So we that that's integrated into the mowing contract that we have. The larger lots that are undeveloped, it obviously wouldn't be cost effective to put sod in or or bluegrass. And we have to be very careful of wind erosion on that site because of how flat you know, it sits flat and then it sits above the river, and you've got all that open space where wind can actually take and then deposit it onto Copeland or into the curb where it ends up in our storm source system. So Andrea and I have talked at length about that because we've had other complaints about what appears to be weeds, but a lot of it is actually red fescue and annual rye grass that I actually planted last fall to make sure that we didn't have wind erosion.

And we'll be doing a touch up of that this spring. Now there are some weeds too. There's probably sandburs and there might be thistle and other things like that. But until every single time we we have an option agreement, we sell a lot, the developers take over that lot, and then we end up with probably something more manicured and and, you know, maintenance. But that's kind of where we're at with we're trying to just control wind erosion and not not have a huge outlay in turf until the development sites are actually developed.

I I've just I was just somewhat concerned, well, in in part because of Montfest budget, but also the attractiveness to potential developers. If it looks shaggy and unkempt Right. It's not it looks less desirable. That's all.

It it'll look less and less like that as the development progresses, but it's still a construction site. Yeah. But thank you for the question. I think it's a very pertinent one because the public has had that same question, and it's good to keep keep that in front of people.

Jason, quick question. Members directing you to page 19 on Jason's report for the year end report. Maybe just you do a nice job laying out just in in summary the year end, but anything of note for the public in terms of success for Point or or maybe things that that are that you wanna be addressing moving forward as a both for our group and in your work with developers and other partners? Sure.

I I I guess the the two big highlights I'd like to and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling that out too. This is on page 19 of the PM report, the monthly PM report. We've had two buildings going on in 2025, War Eagle and The Lofts. Collectively, they're a 115 new housing units.

The investment level is probably up around $30,000,000 for for those two, so that's another big injection in the investment in the development. There's some other information there on things that we've worked on and the public relations work that we did that I think is probably worth mentioning too because we've had presentation to a number of different rotary clubs, the chamber, the La Crosse Area Builders Association. We gave a tour to chancellor Beebe from the university. We had had interviews with WXOW. We highlighted the project at the American Planning Association state conference at the La Crosse Center.

We presented at the Seven Rivers Alliance, Habitat, etcetera. And that's important because I think one of the original goals of this project was not to just end public involvement at at the time the hearings are done and the zoning is adopted, but to be vigilant about it and continue that throughout. So we try to do that to make sure that we're accessible accessible by the media and and and we're transparent on the website, and we're continuing you know, every time I get a call that somebody wants us to speak, I try to make sure that we're available to them. I think those were the the big items. And then, of course, we're continuing to work with the parks department on the Marina And Parkway project too.

Thank you. Members, other questions for Jason?

Councilmember Jason.

I'm curious if the prairie landscaping, is that part of the conversation when you get invited out to these other groups?

Is it part of the conversation?

Yes.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. In fact, one of the conversations I have with developers is not only naturalizing. In fact, we just sent a note out to Lee Haremsa about parking, know, on Lots 11 And 12 and encourage them to look at naturalized landscaping that would actually mimic, you know, what's happening with the streetscaping. There's a couple reasons for that.

Those tend to have deep root systems that really hold the soil together. They can be very, you know, beautiful in terms of the flowering and the seasonal interest, but they also require a lot less chemical and stuff like that than, like, a blue a bluegrass lawn. And then we've also encouraged food, you know, and, you know, food in in the landscaping because food forests don't have to just be, you know, centrally located. They can be scattered throughout the city so people can forage for. And there's been a lot of good examples, that the leadership in La Crosse has provided, like, Marvin Wander's project over on, La Crosse Street and, the the where their offices are and the redo of the La Crosse County Administrative Building.

A lot of those projects have food in the landscaping.

Jason, Mhmm. See no other questions. Thank you for summary for this month. We'll move to next agenda item 20 six-two 11, the monthly financial update for the redevelopment authority. Turn it over to Andrea Train for a summary and your questions. Welcome.

Sure. I don't have anything necessarily outstanding or in particular on the financials. Just typical from month to month.

Thank you. Members, questions about this month's report? Okay. Seeing none, Andrea, you. The next item is 20 30, consideration of possible action on a property management agreement for 65 And 67 Craft Street. I'll turn it back over to Andrea for this item.

Sure. So the Common Council did approve thank you, Councilmember Janssen and other council members funds to acquire 6567 Craft Street. So that's the item that we talked about at last month's RDA meeting, the one just to the north of the 63 Craft Street that we purchased several months ago. So this is a property management agreement with Coldwell Banker River Valley. They do the property management that was approved for 63 Craft Street.

They also help with 621 North 3rd Street across the street from City Hall with property management. So their proposed fee is 10% of the rent. There are two sections to this building, two rental spaces. One of them is currently occupied by Two Men and a Truck, a moving company, and the other one is currently occupied by three sixty. So three sixty is planning to stay for a couple of months. The lease with two men and a truck goes through, I believe, July. So looking into seeing if they will renew. So the property management fee is 10% of the rent. Right now, I think it's about $4,300 annually. So the property management company would just take their monthly fee out of the rent that they would collect for us every month.

And they also are very good at helping just checking on the properties regularly, seeing if there's any notices from Excel or anything out of the ordinary. So I've had really, really wonderful relationship. And as I told them yesterday, they make my life very easy. So I would support bringing them on for property management of this new parcel. We are set to close on March 9.

Andrea, thank you. Members, questions for Andrea related to this this contract? Okay. Councilmember Jensen.

I would move to approve.

Motion by Councilmember Jensen. Saw a second by Julie for approval. Questions or comments on the motion as Seeing none, all in favor of the motion aye or thumbs up? All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Next agenda item is twenty six-two two two nine, an update from Ryeke on Lot 9. We do have a district schedule provided by Ryeke. And we just wanna ask, we do have a representative from Ryeke. If you can come to the podium, use the speaker button when you're using the microphone. Welcome. If you didn't introduce yourself, that'd be great. Thank you.

Hi. Jason Schilling, Reiki Properties, project manager. I'm part of the team that looks at where we're going next. And and it kinda Reiki's a small enough company that try to wear a lot of different hats. So excited to be in another project with the River Point District. Definitely excited to work with the city, the RDA, and Jason Gilman. He's been great. So Lot 9 update. We are, progressing along on Lot 9 drawings. They're mostly complete.

Subtle changes are being made, and no significant changes in the unit count, parking counts, and retail space square footages. We're currently acquiring bids from major trades and finalizing the estimated cost to complete the project. We are here today to request, the RDA's approval for the sequence of our phasing of the River Point projects. We feel this would have an advantageous effect on both Reiki properties and the River Point District. We are requesting the approval to prioritize Lot 11 1st ahead of Lot 9 based on the on the factors I'm gonna list here.

Lot 11, what we're proposing, and I submitted a schedule. I'm not sure if it's in the I think it was on the attachment.

We do have it. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Yep.

So what we're looking at doing is we'd like to prioritize Lot 11 starting that one this summer with Lot 9 starting next summer or '27. The reasons for this change, we wanna get units in the ground sooner. We're looking at a build time of roughly twelve months for Lot 11 versus twenty to twenty four months for Lot 9. Lot 11 has a higher visibility from the riverfront and district's main traffic corridors. This should drive earlier investment and market momentum.

It will enable a commercial restaurant anchor on Lot 11, which will exponentially increase the foot and vehicle traffic into the developing district. Increased traffic directly benefits the white box commercial spaces on adjacent lots by creating early demand. Fills the current visual void along the riverfront, creating more complete and activated districts sooner swapping the phases puts Reiki in a more strategic position for success on Lot 9. Success of Lot 9 is heavily weighted on the 9,600 square feet of retail space and the lease up of that. And we are confident that getting Lot 11 and a restaurant on the ground first will draw interest of other retail space tenants.

As you're aware, TIF projects need enhanced funding to maintain success. Our plan for interest rates to fall significantly hasn't happened, and the projected increase in construction costs will result in erosion of the project's success. These factors aren't ideal for a $40,000,000 project relying heavily on the success of roughly 10,000 square feet in retail space. We have over half million dollars invested in Lot 9, and we're still fully committed to its success. But allowing us to prioritize Lot 11 gets units in the ground quicker, eliminates our risks of 9,600 square feet of retail space sitting vacant like the other ones currently in the district, and we feel it greatly increases the success of both of our projects.

Because of these factors, we are requesting the RDA's approval to move forward with the construction on Lot 11 ahead of Lot 9.

Thank you for that update. I do want to ask maybe Andrea and Jason if they've had conversations with the developer and and your your feedback on on the proposal.

Thank you, Jason. Yes. I have had a number of conversations with both Lee and Jason about the sequencing. And I think one of the as Jason pointed out, one of the this is somewhat strategic because it also has to do with their partner on Lot 11 who wants to get that project started a little sooner. But, cumulatively between the lofts on Lot 8 and the investment on Lot 11, there's more financial leverage too because now they've got more more invested in River Point District before they start that big project.

And so I I don't I don't have any concerns. I think as long as we're making progress on the real estate and the options that we've submitted, I I think that's great.

Yeah. Andrea, go ahead.

Adam, just one point of clarification because this item is not noticed for action. So my recommendation would be the next item for the update on Lot 11 and consideration and possible action on redesign. My recommendation would be to make if you're approving that schedule change, make that as a part of the next item that is noticed for an action.

Without objection from the committee. K. Thank you. Members, do you have questions for Jason again? Jason, thank you for the summary, related to the schedule and related to the a prioritization of Lot Lot 11 over Lot 9?

Okay. We hang tight. We'll I'm sure we'll want your feedback for the next agenda item, but thank you for the summary again. To that point, let's move to agenda item, 26 dash zero two two seven, an update on Lot 11 in consideration of possible action on redesign, noting that this could include action on the previous items 26 Dash zero two two nine, for the, line in schedule. There are a couple of, attachments, including some images and a a letter.

I do wanna welcome, to the podium, representative from Cowboy Jacks as well. So please approach. And, again, if you have a summary for, what's being considered here, we'd appreciate that and then some discussion. Thank you. Can you use the microphone? I'm sorry. Yeah. Thank you.

There we go. Reiki's update for Lot 11 progressing along with architectural drawings. Target completion date of construction documents is this May, and we're moving forward with the additional site borings that we'll need to complete structural design within that same schedule. We also have our civil engineers working on plans so that we can start the project this summer. Lot 11 TIF application has been submitted.

We are working with Julie Emsley and Jason Arswold on the draft term sheet. For this agenda item, we are requesting the RDA's approval to parcel off a section of Lot 11 to allow for a restaurant for which Bill and his team have a a great presentation prepared. We feel this is a win win for Reiche and the River Point District. We are very excited to have a restaurant owner and operator ready to go on this ground on this site right away. Parceling off the lot allows for construction scheduling independence.

Separating the lot allows to run apartment construction independently from Cowboy Jacks, and this will allow us and Cowboy Jacks to run a term sheet and developer's agreement independently. We are requesting the RDA's support to expedite the CSM to formally parcel off the two two site parcels on-site. Our apartment schedule will run concurrently with any Lot 12 work, but remain separate and expedited. The goal is it is to accelerate the delivery of residential units and to capture market demand and generate early revenue traffic into the district.

Thank you, Jason. Mister mister Albright, please, if you would. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. With me today is my wife, Jill, and Michael Golod is also with me. He is the, administrator for the, city of, Altoona, Wisconsin, where Cowboy Jack's, our current facility is. It's good to be back and talking to you guys about another possible way forward with Cowboy Jack's.

After our meeting a month ago, Lee gave me a call. I've worked with Lee in the past on other projects and discussed how we can get Cowboy Jacks on the restaurant location that's currently on Lot 11 that he has the option on. As you know, Cowboy Jacks gave you some background last time. Since then, we've done some some redesigns, some renderings for you guys to see. We we decided to go ahead and and and kinda break up the lot, split it into two two two sections, and I'll show you that in a second too.

I went through the economic impact last time. I think it's important to discuss cowboy jacks as far as our foot traffic. We serve over a 178,000 guests in Altoona last year. So as far as and that's at that one location. So as far as foot traffic, we're gonna bring foot traffic to the area.

We're we're confident in that, and that's gonna help spur future development, future commercial spaces, so on just to help get that foot traffic down. Other direct benefits with all the other commercial creates a complementary amenity for the multifamily area and provides direct link to riverfront activities besides the fact that we employ over a 120 employees. I would say half of that's seasonal, but we currently have around fifty, sixty staff that are full time. As far as the division, so you can see on this one, we labeled it 11 and 11. Multifamily is the 47,832 square foot area where you see Reiki Building.

And the eleven b is a restaurant square footage. It's 140068 689. Out Lot 9, I you know, this kinda morphs into 12 too. I know we're talking about 11, but I'm just kinda gonna keep rolling. So to make this happen, to make anything happen down here as far as a restaurant, a destination type restaurant, we need to have parking.

And I I believe I talked about this a little bit last time on Lot 11, but it seems to keep making a little more sense on Lot 12 given the fact of of some of the constraints with the monolithic slab. But to make this happen, we're gonna split this lot into these two different parcels, 11 A, 11 B. Out Lot 9, I've I've I've seen renderings and and renditions of of different landscaping and so on, and we'd be happy to work with whatever landscaper. I believe there's a landscaper hired for that area. And and to be able to create some some type of a of a plaza area, which is kinda what we have drawn there.

So to be able to connect that area to the rest of then you would come in. There there's approximately 90 some parking stalls that that that go on to Lot 12 over that slab area and also over the I believe it's a I can't the the concrete structure for the storm structure to be able to utilize that area. Currently and and Michael Gulak can can can talk about this a little bit later. We currently have 80 I was there this morning, 86 spots in in our location in at at Altoona. This is very similar to that, and and that is a 100% full every night.

And we also end up taking up a lot of the other sparky spots along there. I mean, this is a this is a in in a attraction type place that that that bring in a lot of guests. Here's the the front rendering. So when you come in, if if you notice good plantings up front, we heavily landscape everything. It's one of the main things of any of our developments.

If you ever get to see any of our multifamily stuff, we're very into landscaping irrigation. We always wanna make sure that everything's nice and neat and clean. On the left side there, towards the south side of of the building, that's outdoor seating. And then towards the back, you'll see our two story structure for a wedding venues, get togethers, and then the flex space down below. The back of the building on on the far left, and we have some massing there that kinda shows the the some potential heights of Reichke's building.

We have outdoor open space on the far left, outdoor open space on on the far right, and in the back, we have a two story structure that can be a flex space for Four Seasons. Garage doors, upper and lower. This is a really big area at our Altoona location. We've we've received a lot of requests to reserve our upper deck. Our upper deck in Altoona is not fully covered, so we get a lot of requests to use that.

We don't always do that, so we think that that this location in La Crosse would would fit well with to have a nice two story structure and that seats around 80 guests, So we'll be able to host large events up top, and people will be able to reserve that. As far as the conditioned space, so the restaurant and the two story outdoor flex space is ten thousand six fifty nine square feet. Open deck area, that's the side on the south and also on the I believe that's the west area. That's 2,100 square feet, two story seasonal flex space, 90 plus parking stalls, excellent views of the water. We're taking advantage full advantage of that river, trying to get the most people in in the highest spots, the best spots for viewing, and periodic live music on the backside.

Proposed timeline, spring twenty twenty six, we're gonna work on hopefully, working on, design. Spring summer, work through approvals of permits, developers agreement, which I think will actually be faster than that depending on how this all goes. Summer, fall, we'll commence construction, and we're excited to get this in the ground and get a lot of traffic through River Point District. And, I believe, Michael's on, line two here.

We're having some audio issues. So, Bill, are you done with your presentation? I am. Okay. So we're gonna tell them we need to restart this video. And so then when he logs back in, he'll he should be able to hear and speak. Okay. So we'll just hold tight.

It was working.

It's the technology, not you, Bill. Right?

Yeah. Right.

Can we tell them to log off?

We're telling

him to

chat last

Okay. If you want. I'll text Mike. Yeah.

Can you hear us now?

He can hear us. Thank you. And for the benefit of those here and online, we had to pause. We just the interest of open meeting slots, we can't continue discussion until we're back online. So we appreciate the patience as we work through the technology. So thank you, Lindsay, for your help. I guess at this point, and Bill, unless you have other presentation materials, I want to open up to questions for the RDA members for your presentation and for proposed development and certainly for the proposed parcel separation for Lot 11. So members, any questions for Bill or for Jason for that matter? Jason Schilling, I should say, for that matter.

So is Mike able to talk? I

guess the question I have, you mentioned the current spots in Altoona are 86. Ideally, how many do you need?

You know, it it flows. Obviously, you don't wanna Right. Overdue, you know, build the church for Easter Sunday. But, ideally, a 120, you know, I would think. So what happened was right next to us, Helix came in, which is another it's a kind of a wine bar, and they have another 18 spots, roughly.

So CJs, Cowboys, tends to fill up our location, and it's public. Our lot is half public and half ours. But it what happens is is that around four, 05:00, CJ's crowd moves in in the restaurant, and it fills up everything, pretty much. So if you add in the the the helix, which is what we use too, it's a 101 spots there, you know, so I would think a 120. Our staff park off-site just to make sure we have more parking availability, but we've had people stand out by the by the road because there are other locations. Tell them, we have maps.

We

have QR codes when you drive out to say there's more parking because we can see them drive through and see everything filled. We're not full when that parking lot's full. We're half full. So that's the deal, is to make sure we have enough parking for this type of thing. So

k. Thank you. Councilmember Jason.

When you say that your staff park off-site, what would that look like at River Point?

Street parking. Off-site means out of our parking lot. Whatever would make sense that is, you know, walkable, but yet still and doesn't take a prime area. You know? So I think right now, our staff parks I don't know. It's like a parking lot couple parking lots away. So

yeah. Gus, go ahead.

Can you remind me, in your Altoona location, how many residential areas are on the the

There are quite a few.

Are they right on top of the restaurant like this

one would be? Very similar to this. Okay. Yeah. Very close. And Mike was gonna touch on that too.

Mike, do you want to touch on that now, that question?

Yes. Your honor, thank thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm glad to to speak, in support of this project, based on my experience working with CapFest and and having, Cowboy Jacks be a good corporate, neighbor here in in Altoona. Yeah. We have throughout River Prairie, we have many apartment buildings, hundreds and hundreds of units.

They've never posed any issues or problems with regard to their interaction with with those residents. We have also a large amphitheater adjacent to cowboys that we program music every Monday and Wednesday throughout the summer till about 08:00. When we did cowboy Jack's liquor license, we conditioned it upon them not being able to have outdoor entertainment beyond 10:00. That's never been an issue. As a matter of fact, the people that choose to live and move to that area do in large part because of those amenities that are available and those entertainment options that are available.

They make a conscious choice that that's kind of lifestyle that they want and they enjoy, and we we haven't had any problems at all, not one.

Mike, thank you. I have a question. It's probably more for Jason Gilman or Citi's staff. I just want to remind folks about the concrete monolith that it's below Model 11. Maybe just some background on that terms of developable land and and how that might be might impact what's developable on that parcel.

Sure. Thank you, mister chairman. That is an important factor, and it's, not necessarily something that we we we knew there was a concrete monolith from the very beginning, and it was it's residue basically from the concrete plant that was on the site. What we didn't know was that as the geotechnical people, and now we've got two companies that have looked at this Braun Intertek and Chippewa Valley testing, I think, with which is working with, Reiki. As they looked at it, and they determined, just how feasible is it to put a network of geo peers on that site and still be cost effective.

Because the bigger the building, the heavier the building, you've gotta have more foundational support. And what we've been told is that, that becomes very, very difficult on that site, and it would be extremely expensive to excavate all that concrete out. So the alternative is, some open space, but also, I I I mentioned earlier that Ryeke is still looking at what is the possibility of maybe the southernmost end Of Lot 12 still putting some townhomes on it. And if you look at the original PDD, that's very much what we had. This this was indicated in the PDD as a civic slash entertainment type district, which was later, amended in in the PDD revisions to allow up to three story buildings with a preference for mixed use, where if there was gonna be some housing, there would be some commercial space with it.

And and that's what, you know, the if you look at the original PDD aerial illustration, it shows two buildings on Lot 11, much like what cowboy, Jacks, and Reiche are proposing. So, yes, that that concrete monolith became an issue, and and there is somewhat of an upside to keeping some of that open too because that's the main visual corridor out to the river from the interior of the site, which was also intended by Rinka Architects in the original master plan so that, you know, people could see through that outlot and those triangular outlots that were built in for view corridor.

Thank you. And I'm glad you brought up the p d t PDD as well. That's that's gonna be a a follow-up, so I appreciate you pulling that into your answer. Thank you.

I think it's also Yeah. Go ahead, Bill.

I can't even see. Very You can hear me? Sorry. I think it's also important. When when we built in River Prairie, we were the second building that went in there. And what followed, and Mike can touch on that, what followed after we came in and the amount of traffic that we were bringing in and so on, is pretty much the whole development just kinda kicked off. You know? Not to say we're the catalyst for that. Timing's always part of it. But I do believe that the amount of people that come through because of cowboy jacks and the atmosphere, I think that came up last time I was here. You know, what is it? You mean, is it a sit down restaurant, that type of thing? It is. It's a family friendly sit down restaurant where it has some live music. That's exactly what it is.

And that's something too that I had talked to Mike a little bit about yesterday. If it's something that you guys have any questions about what Cowboy Jacks is, then, the administrator would be, one to answer those questions. So

Thank you for that, Bill. Members, additional questions for for Bill or yeah. Go ahead, Julie. Can you, turn your microphone on? Sorry.

Looking for clarification so I'm understanding the site plan correctly. So we're looking to split Lot 11, and so the apartment would be on the North End, Chicago Jacks would be on the South End of Lot 11, but your parking would actually be on Lot 12.

And at Lot 9. Part of out Lot 9. There's a there's a plaza area right now, which is water

is 9.

Yeah. That's that's a spot between eleven and twelve. It's got the the vent, the big vent on it. Yeah.

Yep. Yep. Okay.

And also the part with the slab underneath

it. Right. And I guess as a follow-up, and this might be for Jason, to the regarding the monolith, has it been determined that we are not able to build on top of that?

It's not that we're not able to build on it. It's just that the cost effectiveness of having a large scale, There are portions of it that make it, because of the depth and thickness of all the concrete, make it not feasible to excavate all that out and put it back and still be cost effective for construction. Parts of the lot, though, were the debris. I've looked at the soil borings, the vertical information, and some of it is busted up in debris where it's conceivable they could get in some geo peers. But the recommendation from the geotechnical experts is lighter buildings, which means one, two story type buildings, not four four story buildings.

And that's what Reiche is still looking at on Lot 12 to see whether or not they could have a combination of some building plus the parking.

Yeah. So I guess one more follow-up. Has oh,

go ahead. I just one other clarification. On all Lot 9 where the storm water vault is, we did ask short LA Hendrickson, is it feasible to put parking on top of that storm water vault? And, yes, it was designed for that. The illustrations actually show a programmable area for farm market or things like that, so the paving is actually desirable for part of it.

Did you have a follow-up, Julia?

Mr. Chairman, may I also just a question about on street parking in River Point District that came up earlier. I wanted to just note that we have a detailed inventory from Shore D. L. To Henrikson, and there's nearly 400 on street parking stalls within all of River Point District. So if you any of you would like to have that map, I'm happy to send that to you.

Thank you for that. Members, I'm looking for additional questions. And as a reminder, what we're asked to do is to consider the an action on both the separation of Lot 11 for the developers to proceed and also, the action related to, Lot 9 in terms of schedule for Ryeke to prioritize Lot 11 over Lot 9. Goetzle.

I guess for Lot 11, was it explored to flip the Cowboy Jacks and the apartment building at all? Just looking at the plan for the PDD, the vision has always been that that has been a green space all the way down to the river and to connect that through to the rest

of the

development. So having that extensive pavement seems to be veering from the plan and the original design intent. Understand that the parking is needed, so curious if

the reverse was explored at all on Lot 11. Reiki's building is their options approved, I believe, with the restaurant on it. Pretty much the same size as Cowboy Jackson. Pretty much we are kinda taking that location. As far as being on Lot 12, I've never really looked at Lot 12. Once you put something on Lot 12, the angle of it is kinda even if you look at the parking, it kinda comes to comes to a point. So once you put a restaurant on there and then you try to put parking on there, there really isn't much room for anything else. I mean, there isn't much room for parking. It's kinda what I'm getting at. It it would be roughly around 30 some stalls as it goes to the point, So we wouldn't get enough as far as what we need for our restaurant.

And right now, even with Lot 12, we'll be using some of that street parking, I assume.

Additional questions, comments, or, yes, Council Member Johnson.

I'm curious. We did get one letter of opposition. If there's anything else that, mister Gilman or director Trane wanted to add to address that?

I did read mister Idy's letter, and the I think the general spirit of that letter is just to shoot for highest and best use on the real estate. And the there are a couple of things to think about relative to that. One is that these sites were intentionally designed to be entertainment, civic, public type uses because of the adjacent seat of the parkway. And the original master plan only had single story buildings here. It wasn't until the revisions under the final implementation plan that we loosened that up and said, well, we could go up to three stories.

And so I I certainly understand where he's coming from, and we we definitely wanna maximize investment on these sites. I think what makes me more comfortable with the proposal as it stands today is the combination of Ryeke and Cowboy Jack's that we're not we're not putting in a single story suburban style restaurant pad. This is a two story building next to a three story mixed use building that has a lot of interesting interface, you know, like the rooftop outdoor dining, you know, that is adjacent to the parkway. And And it mimics very closely, as I said earlier, the aerial illustration that shows two buildings on Lot 11 with with off street parking in between the two. And that's why it doesn't really concern me that much much to put parking on Lot 12 because the two the Reiki Building and the Cowboy Jacks are consuming much of Lot 11, and we're just putting the surface parking over on 12 where we know we have this geotechnical problem.

And I think that that's a fairly good solution. I would prefer to see maybe a building on Lot 12 too if we could squeak one in there, but it's really a conversation that Cowboy Jacks has to have with Ryeke about the amount of parking that they can get and then, you know, and how that relates to the the total density and impact of the development on Lot 11 too.

I think this was mentioned earlier too, but the plaza space that I think we saw in Reiki's development plan or the renderings last month for the activation of that plaza for any number of events, food trucks, or whatever we can imagine. Right? So I think looking at that in that space, in that in that vein as well. Thank you, Councilmember Jenks, for raising that question. Go ahead.

With that, I would be ready to make a motion to approve the division of Lot 11 with changing the scheduling of prioritizing construction on Lot 11 over Lot 9.

We have a motion for approval for those two items. We have a second for those two items. Second. Second by Phil. Do we have questions or comments related to the motion as presented?

So the

vote is we have to do both on this vote?

That's the recommendation as I understand it from planning, correct? Or do would you like them separated out?

I guess my recommendation is was to not take an action or vote on the previous item and address that as and somehow. So whether you're saying you're approving lot 11 with the understanding that the schedule for Lot nine would change or something like that, to show your feelings and vote for the request on Lot 9 to delay the construction of that within this motion. Hopefully I made that less complicated and not more comp Gus looks like I've made it more complicated.

No. I think I might have made it more complicated, and I just wanna look at the council member Janssen. I think your motion was to approve the separation of of parcel of the Lot 11 with the understanding as as Andrea described of the schedule change. Correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you, Gus. Does that help?

No. Okay. What we're voting what are we're we're voting to allow them to change the the schedule and to build up this parking lot and the and the the restaurant?

The the latter part first. That's the motion with an understanding of the schedule change to help Reiki prioritize Lot 11 over Lot 9.

For

the prioritization or for the that's the main that's the main motion. The main motion is for the for the parcel separation. Correct?

Right. And then the next item is for Lot 12 with the understanding of what the Lot 12 would be for the parking. So right now, it would just be Lot 11 looking at the division of the two parcels with the understanding of what's coming next for the Lot 12 request. And I know there was discussion about the CSM with the actual split and that certified survey map, so that will come back to the RDA separately. So right now, motion is just about Lot 11, or the agenda item is just about Lot 11. So that's looking at the separation and understanding that the separation is to fit Cowboy Jacks on the southern part of Lot 11.

Julie, go ahead.

I'm trying to wrap our head around, this is actually crossing three lots. So what is the status then of Lot 0, Lot 9. Is there then an option agreement that needs to go on to Lot 9? Very good question.

Yes. So there would be some sort of agreement between the redevelopment authority and whoever is using that primarily as parking would be a separate request, separate situation. So Jason has talked to them about whether it's some sort of lease revenue or what that structure would look like. So yeah, that would be a separate request that's not before you today, technically.

Thank you for that question, Julie. Okay. I just want to make sure, kind of, so you're understanding the motion. Or maybe Councilmember Jansen, you want to restate your motion for the benefit?

My motion is to allow the divisional about eleven, which then ultimately would also give them permission to prioritize construction on eleven over nine.

Okay. We do have a motion and a second. Gus, appreciate you clarifying that. Thank you. Other questions related to the motion before us?

Additional discussion? Yeah. Okay. I see none. I do want to call the motion, all in favor of the motion as presented, aye or thumbs up? All opposed? We have, one one opposed, Gus. Thank you, Gus. And and Michael. I'm sorry, Michael.

Okay. Michael was an Michael was an aye as well. Motion carries. Thank you again for the discussion and the clarification on the motion. As mentioned earlier, I do want to note that the next agenda item related to this. Agenda item 20 six-two 28, consideration of possible action on planning option agreement for Lot 12. Do I want to turn it over to Andrea Trane for summary or Jason for a summary for this item?

Thank you. This is also a request by Raiki for an option on Lot 11, who is negotiating with Cowboy Jacks to provide the parking for the more dense development on Lot 11. So we have the two buildings, you know, with Cowboy Jacks and then Ryeke's development. Part of the caveat here is, of course, that the last time I talked to Lee Haremza, they were still studying whether or not there would be room for building on lot on Lot 12, the southernmost lot that has the concrete monolith on it. So understand that these initial option agreements are typically six months, and that gives the developer chances to come back to you with their evolving rendition of what the design might look like.

And then and then, you can decide, you know, how you'd like to proceed. Bill Albright, of course, with Cowboy Jack's needs the parking to make the restaurant go, so they're in extra you know, they're linked. They they one can't happen without the other. So that's what this option is for. It's really to facilitate that entire waterfront, both parcels with the option of also working with the city in partnership on the design of Outlot 9, which is the storm water vault. And I've put Lee in touch with the landscape architect in the parks department that's working on the parkway in that whole area.

Thank you, Jason. Questions on the option agreement before us tonight? Phil, go ahead. We have a motion to approve this option agreement. Do we have a second? Second. By Councilmember Janssen. Questions or comments on the motion as presented? Yeah, guys, go ahead.

So, with this one, when vote, this is to put a parking lot there.

Or to give them This gives six months for the developer to continue to work with to give site control over to Lot 11 to work with planning and with Jason on what this might look like.

Okay. Well, just I give a comment then. And, Jason, I I appreciate what you said about the original PDE showing a picture of a parking lot there and the fact that, you know, maybe the original intent might have been for that. My problem with that is that what we're being sold now is that this is gonna be a premier location in La Crosse. It's a brand new thing.

It's something that we haven't had before, a great waterfront that people can, enjoy. And, you know, it's it's a it it you know, it the difference between this location and the location of Altoona is I don't believe that that put that spot was designed for that that purpose. This we've kind of we've kind of been selling the public on the fact that we're resurrecting a industrial waste site, and we're making it a premier spot, a jewel of lacrosse, if you will. And the fact that the avenue, the gateway to this, is that's gonna be paved forever, really, really bothers me. It concerns me.

It's right on the water. And and, you know, this I made my my you know, when we had the closed session last week or last month, I I made I made that point clear there that I just don't think this is the right direction. We're kind of at that crossroads I talked about that, you know, what what what do we want here? Do we want a public space to to enjoy? Not that people won't enjoy themselves at at Cowboy Jack's. Seems like a wonderful restaurant. Seems like a great place. I just don't like the fact that we're gonna be paving a, you know, a prime pristine place that are a potentially prime pristine place, I should say. Something that we've resurrected and we were selling ourselves and we're selling the public on. And that's all I gotta say.

Thank

you, Gus. Other questions, comments on the motion? Okay. Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Yes, Andrea, go ahead.

I I appreciate that, and I and I think that we none of us want a just a complete parking space parking lot there. I think it might be good to think about the idea that part of this time during this first run of the planning option agreement would be for Raiki to look at developability on that site. So still trying to find a way to put some sort of structure on that site. Jason Gilman, would you agree with that? Or Jason Schilling, well, that'll be part of your analysis.

We'll be seeing what other buildings. So we're not selling this to them yet. If they come back and it's completely a parking lot, that's what they would present to you, and another decision would be made. But I think the intent is expressing to them that we don't want it to be just completely a parking lot. They do want a structure on there in some level.

Jason, go ahead.

I feel the same way about it as Gus does, and it's really not my job to try to convince you. I respect your opinion and, you know, the direction that the RDA would like to go with this. I I have a little bit different perspective only because I've talked to the geotechnical, you know, people or I've looked at their data, and that from from the very beginning in my PM reports under challenges and opportunities, I said unclassified excavation is gonna be one of our biggest threats. And it we didn't know how much of a threat this concrete would be until we started to really look at what is the cost implications of that concrete monolith of either excavating it or trying to drill through it with a lot of geo peers. So in my my view, after looking at that, the the parking, which is actually needed for civic and entertainment type uses, most of those uses will not rely solely on on street parking despite the fact that we have 400 throughout the entire development, they're gonna want some off street parking.

And in fact, the original Rinke master plan showed off street parking on Lot 11. So I look at it as it's a catalyst it's an impetus for the density that's happening on Lot 11, which is a two story restaurant plus a three story mixed use building that Ryke is building. There there are some other things that I think are important to for us to explore over this six month option agreement. One would be how do we design that space so that it actually is also useful for the parkway and the marina because Cowboy Jacks, as I talked to Bill Albright, they don't open their store until noon, I think, most days. So there's a period of time when that parking could be used by the public to walk the trails or the marina, and we'd have to work through those discussions to see whether or not that's possible.

Another one is this Ethos power out of Baroque. Is this a is this a site where we can actually put solar above the parking, which we've done in the city of La Crosse many times. So there's examples of that all over the Midwest, and and Western Technical College has one of the more visible ones, I think. And and then we also looked at, you know, whether or not the as Andrea pointed out, you know, this this lot is smaller. Lot 12 is smaller, and it's angular.

So it pinches off on the southern end if you look at the mapping of it. That makes it really difficult to get parking efficiency, you know, because usually parking, you want a 60 foot rectangular base so you can have that double loaded, you know, that drive aisle with a double loaded 90 degree parking in it. If you look at Cowboy Jack's rendition of this, they've got one way angle parking that are just kind of pinching down into that corner, so it's not very efficient. Is there a way that we can make it, you put a building pad in there and still get the net need delivered for parking? I think that's part of the study, the the evolving plans that Cowboy Jax and Reiche have to look at.

So those are just a few of my observations. I would I prefer to see a big mixed use building on it? Absolutely. But what I'm being told by the geotechnical people, it's probably not feasible because of the cost of it.

Jason, thank you. And Andrea, thank you for your comments as well. Do have Julie, do have another comment? Okay. Okay. Yeah. Go for it now.

I appreciate that, both Andrea and Jason. And I just want to actually recognize that clearly with my concerns, I I do agree with Gus. I understand the challenges, and I do I am excited for the restaurant and the vibrancy that it can bring. But we will definitely be looking for, I mean, protection on a lot nine, making sure that that's green space as much as possible, and doing what we can to ensure that, you know, this is not whatever treatments can be done from a landscaping perspective. And that's what I'm going to be looking for.

So in terms of updating run updated renderings, we're going to need to see more from a you know, doing what we can to balance that pavement against the other what we're looking for on the space in terms of that connection to the nature and and whatnot. So I just want to put that out there for Gus as well.

Thank you very much. Again, we do have a motion and a second for approval for this item. Any additional comments or questions? Seeing none. All in favor of the motion, aye?

All

opposed, same sign? One opposed, Gus. Motion carries. Again, thank you for discussion. Really appreciate the conversation that will help guide the next six months for planning. So thank you for that. Final general item is 20 six-two 19, consideration and possible action on response from the October 2025 RFEI for Lots 1 And 2 of the River Point District plant for options for purchase and development from unwind property management. Note that this item is noticed for closed session pursuant to Wisconsin statute 19.85, parent one, parent e. We do a variety of documents for this attachment or for this agenda item. Wanna welcome representative from UNWIND to our meeting.

If you can, again, reintroduce yourself to the committee and use the microphone you can. Welcome.

Yeah. This is Jacob Mooney with Unwind here. I'll go back over a little bit of stuff on the last meeting, and then I'll rip into some stuff that we've changed. So about us, our group manage owns, manage, maintains over 500 apartments across Cashton, Galesville, Holman, La Crosse, Onalaska, and Sparta. For the most part, we do everything in house with our great employees, but also rely on local businesses as well, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, insurance, keys, all the stuff we do locally.

We've been looking for a good solid location to build townhouses, row houses, missing middle housing for a couple of years. Not that La Crosse is like this, but most local municipalities, you need 6,500 plus square foot a lot to build this style of housing, it makes it makes it hard to make sense financially. You take a lot. You can put a 36 unit on and two beds, and you can put eight row houses. Know?

River Point stands out to us because you're looking for density. Instead of getting 24 row houses on the lot the size of Lot 2, we'll be able to get 46, if not more, on there. It also helps a lot that we don't have to do a big retention pond that takes up half a lot too because you guys already got that taken care of. This tile housing, we feel, is the most underutilized, underdeveloped in the area. Not everybody wants to live in a big apartment building where they share hallways.

You know, people stomping on top of them and stuff like that where you can hear them down through the floor. Not that they're against a neighbor or anything like that, but just feel more comfortable in their own space. I know three people that where I grew up, Lansing, New Albany area. The other guys are from one's from Cashton, the other two are La Crosse. Where I grew up Lansing, New Albany area, three of them that come up here and work. Two of them found townhouses. The other one couldn't find one. You know, it's a style of housing. I don't know if it's more rural. I think there's gonna be a lot of people too that own houses in the area that sell their to free up to other people to move down into something like this where they don't have to worry about mowing the lawn and all that.

Like I stated in the last meeting, I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to bring this tile of housing this closer proximity to downtown. Now I'll kinda go over what we switched since the last meeting here. Lot one, you know, it's essentially pretty much the same. We're gonna do two two story nine units down here, but we switched this. We had a six unit two story. We switched that to a three story building now. So that's gonna break up the block a little bit, so it isn't all just the same roofs. It's yeah. That's gonna help break the lot up and add more density too. So the here's kinda what we're looking at.

So it'll be all the way down along Craft Street. There'll be front front porches and stuff like that looking out over it. That's still gonna have a rear rear load garage. And then the timeline, I can go over that if you want me to. But let me get into Lot 2 here. Lot 2, we spent a fair amount of time on this lot since the last meeting. You know, we had two different options, and one of them had a sidewalk going through the middle of it. You know, we met with Jason too and Andrea, and we realized that's not the highest and use for your lot is to have another sidewalk running through it. So we pivoted to our other site plan and worked on that to add density. With the new conceptual site plan, we got forty six two story units on it.

We're also looking at adding that same three story building to this lot too because it's they're narrower, so, clearly, you're going up a story. You can fit more on there. And it's you know, three story, you're gonna think that's just gonna go to younger crowd, but we got a three story, four unit on a on Alaska right across from Northern Hills. And I think the average age of people living there, it's been the same people in there. No one's ever moved. I think it's probably 50. So, yeah, I can go through some of these too. These are highly conceptual. We're it'd be nice if we got an option agreement. We'd start spending quite a bit of money on it, but it's hard for us to go shove, you know, $50 in architect and engineering worth of work if we don't know if it's really gonna go anywhere.

So this is kinda what lot one would look like. These the garages will be on the rear end, but, you know, these are gonna be 46 foot wide. The drive aisle is not gonna be that big, but it'd be two nine units running this way and then a nine unit three story on the front. And then for Lot 2, you know, we're kinda thinking something like this. And then the more we get looking at it, you guys don't need all that green space.

So it's not gonna be packed in here this type, but it's gonna be more, you know, and we can mix a couple three story buildings, whether it's let me grab this other site plan here. You know, whether this is two six units, we could do two nine units here. I think it'd probably look better if we put the nine units on the outside here to break it up, you know, and then it'd have the porches the second story porch is looking over there. But our total investment too, you know, it was 12 to 15,000,000 before. And with the added density, it's more like 16 to 18 and a half.

So and that's if the geo peers come back where we kinda think they're gonna be with the conversations we've had, if there's no surprises. So I guess any questions or anything on that?

Jake, thanks for the update. Members, questions for for Jake based on the updated, updated lot design, personal design. And maybe while you consider that, Andrew or Jason, any maybe initial initial impressions or challenges with with current the current design.

And I think I'll add one thing too with our timeline on that. You know, we're just doing that. If our occupancy is really strong, we can we can bump that up too and speed it up. We're just doing it to be a little bit cautious on the front end, but I think this is gonna be most of some of the most desirable stuff down there.

If I could add one thing, as Jacob mentioned, Jason and I met with him and his team, and they were extremely receptive to any comments about design and placement of the buildings. And we also did talk about an option at some point if these could become owner occupied. They are looking at using opportunity zone funding, so there is a huge benefit to remain the current owner for at least ten years, but to building them to the design of being able to turn into owner occupied at some point.

Just a few comments. As I said earlier, the PDD anticipated lower density style housing north of where the Driftless and MSP is. So that was an option. It wasn't it wasn't mandated, but it was something that the PDD said we can have some lower density product in that area. And if

you

recall, to the west of this site are Lots 3 And 4, which Red Earth has for 18 townhouse condominiums. That was one of the sites where the PDD actually said these shall be owner occupied. So there there's going to be owner occupied condominiums on the on those two sites. As I did the math, I think Lot Lot 2 is a standard city block, around two acres or 1.8. Lot 1 is a smaller block.

And what we asked Jacob's team to look at was can we mix it up a little bit, have some two story, some three story, some, you know, with different designs, and I think they've they've done that. I think there's a total of, if I did the math right, 70 units that they're proposing on the two lots, 46 on Lot 2, and then 24 on Lot 1 three, nine unit row house type building on Lot 1. And as he indicated, the total investment is somewhere around $18,500,000 I think the rent that they had in their presentation was the target was somewhere around 1,800 to 2,500 in that range. So this is certainly, as far as I can see, is compliant with the PDD direction. It doesn't conflict with it.

And and Jacob did ask us about design standards and quality, and we Andrew and I sat down with him here in this room and actually showed him some examples of townhomes. And, of course, we've got some on-site with the ones that the Driftless built right right behind the larger building. And I think he has his character imagery mimics very much what we can use the direction of the design standards in the PDD.

Question related to lot two. And I think Jake had mentioned the green space and then trying to weigh green space versus density. I guess I just wanna make sure that I'm understanding what you might be considering for that for lot two.

Yeah. We were kind of thinking a little green space, but it's I mean, there's plenty of green space around, so we'd probably put two six units in there where that green space was. I think that's a better fit. And I think we're at we're at 73 units right now. And then if we change two of the six units on Lot 2 to nine units, that's gonna add, you know, more units to it to another six. So

Okay. Thank you. My my nothing wrong with a little extra green space, but it's not Yeah.

And it's not it's not as dense as it looks on this this rendering rendering here. I mean, there's gonna be there's gonna be some grass. It's not gonna

be just total asphalt. Sure. Council member Janssen.

Could you speak a little bit more about the parking? It looks like it each is going to have a one garage per unit.

Yep. So we're looking at on Lot 1, they're gonna be you know, they're wide enough. We're gonna have to figure out design whether we wanna have you know, we could do it's wide enough. We could have a two stall garage, and there's a there's a some plans attached to that. We could do a two car, but then it makes the living room and stuff smaller. So we're kinda leaning towards a one car, but then there's gonna be enough space behind it, you know, where they can park one in tandem outside of the garage and one to the other side of it. So everyone's, for the most part, gonna have three parking stalls for the which for townhomes, it's, you know, usually they got kids and stuff too. So it's I know you're not looking for a big parking lot, but it's gonna be, you know, it's just gonna be they they can pull one in the garage and then put the garage down. You know, another one can park behind it and one next to that. So

So you're finding that that's that's what the demand is to have at least two to three spots for

each of those?

Yeah. It seems like for townhouses, you know, we did 38 in Sparta or something like that, and we tried and did it's yeah. There's cars all over the place. So it seems like for this style of living, most people, they're couples of any sort. Each of them are driving a car. You know? It's especially if they're three beds. Yeah. Which some of the ones on Lot 2, I think we're gonna dial back to two beds for the most part. That's gonna be a little bit more economical and maybe a little bit more expensive on Lot 1. But yeah. And we can work on that with an arca with the architect and engineer too to see the best fit for it. But

other questions or comments? Maybe another question for members. Do we see a need to go to a closed session for this item? Or k. But I'm seeing some shaking heads. Okay. Maybe for staff, are you looking for any specific action or just a general approval to move ahead with planning for this for this parcel?

Yeah. I would go with that just general direction to move ahead. And then if this is approved, we would bring a formal planning option agreement from each lot next month.

Summing that for members, what action would you like to take on on progress for this for these two labs? Yeah. Phil, go ahead. We've got a motion for approval for the planning for lots one and two. We have a second. A second from Michael. Questions or comments related to the motion? Yeah. Phil, go ahead.

I just wanna say that I wanna see as much architectural variant variance as possible. I mean, I'd I really rather not see people walk into the wrong place. You know? And a lot of the renderings you see, you know, this color pattern and repeats over and over again. I'd like to see as much variety as possible.

Yep. That's fair.

Council member Jason. I'm also looking for density, but I'm also looking for something that's not all concrete. And I would love to see, you continue to work with Jason and Andrea, because I think they've got a really good handle on what we're looking for.

Seeing no other questions or comments, let's take a extra on the motion. All those all those in favor of the motion signify by saying hi or thumbs up. All opposed, same sign. Alright. Motion carries. And, Jake, thank you for being passionate citizen in the outset. Thanks for being patient with the conversation tonight. It's always hard being last on the agenda. All join us in open session for this evening. We'll look ahead to next month's meeting, and thank you again for, staff work and for Jason work working with all the different partners for River Point District.