Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 21 2014 EDA Minutes 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 21, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER EDA Commissioner Keeney called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. Present were Hedberg (arrived at 4:12 p.m.), Bump, Keeney and Chromy. Also present was EDA Executive Director Frank Boyles, Community & Eco- nomic Development Director Rogness, and Community Development Specialist McCabe. Also present Greg and Mary Schweich, and Mike Stout. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY BUMP TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Bump, Keeney and Chromy. The motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY BUMP TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF March 17, 2014. Ayes by Bump, Keeney and Chromy. The motion carried. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A.Recommendation to Appoint a Technology Village Board Member B.Sewer and Water Fee Deferral Program Amendments C.Deerfield Business Park – Comprehensive Plan and Zoning MOTION BY BUMP, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Ayes by Hedberg, Bump, Keeney and Chromy. The motion carried. 5. REMOVED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS No Consent Items Removed 6. PUBLIC HEARING No Public Hearings 7. OLD BUSINESS No Old Business 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Downtown Redevelopment Project Proposal Rogness: introduced Greg and Mary Schweich, and Mike Stout, representing Copper Creek as the pro- posed developer of property located in downtown Prior Lake at the northwest corner of Trunk Highway 13 and County Highway 21. The EDA is being asked to provide input to Copper Creek as they continue to evaluate the support and viability of this potential commercial project at a key downtown entrance location where the ReMax office building currently stands. Stout: distributed a multi-page packet of information, and began to walk the EDA Commissioners through a description of the proposed project and the benefits to the city’s downtown area. He showed a concept Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com drawing of a Copper Creek Building of 27,750 square feet that includes space for a 3,500 square foot res- taurant with rooftop deck, 6,250 square feet of retail space on the first level, and 18,000 square feet of of- fice space within two levels. Stout described how much this project could revitalize, strengthen and expand downtown Prior Lake. He further summarized their discussions with city staff on how this project could help address a lack of parking in this area through the construction of underground and surface parking. Public parking achieved through this project would need financial support from the city. Finally, it was noted that Copper Creek had previous discussions with county and state highway staff regarding any flexibility in ob- taining additional property for the project from highway right-of-way. Bump: questioned what the return is to the city for its financial support? Schweich: explained that a city investment in downtown redevelopment should be viewed as an invest- ment rather than a subsidy; the city has already invested heavily in downtown transportation, streetscape, and specific redevelopment projects. Keeney: said there is a difference in an investment versus a subsidy; a return is needed with an invest- ment. Bump: asked that the value of a job be defined and that public financial assistance be tied to a job crea- tion metric. He also recognized other intangible results from redevelopment due to a new business invest- ment (i.e., 50 and France). th Hedberg: reminded everyone of the Maxfield study that identified leakage in commercial spending within Prior Lake that needs to change, or either more spending needs to be captured from visitors. Stout: described a pinch point now whereby growth in the downtown area is stalled due to the lack of pub- lic parking, especially in the area they propose to redevelop. Schweich: described a $3 to $4 million investment into this project that will then be a catalyst for other downtown investments. Boyles: encouraged the EDA to identify the need for further analysis on tax increment financing, which may require services of the city’s financial consultant. The level of private financing and equity is also im- portant to see as part of further financial analysis. Keeney: stated that parking must be convenient and accessible to the public, which may require financial support from a larger area than just tax increment that is site specific. Rogness: provided his perspective that public parking is one key outcome from a downtown redevelop- ment project worthy of public financial support; otherwise, the city must provide that parking elsewhere, in- cluding a possible future parking ramp. Chromy: asked about the project timeline, and hoped that their timeline could match well with a proposed downtown parking solution. Stout: stated that this project would be anticipated to start construction in the Spring of 2015. Keeney: agreed that it is important to unlock the existing parking constraint in order to open up the down- town for more opportunities. Bump: agreed that the city needs to look at this proposed project in terms of both short and long term, and that metrics must drive benefit to the community. Stout: asked the EDA Commissioners to further articulate the city’s vision for its downtown. Boyles: confirmed that the City of Prior Lake has had a strong vision of a vibrant and beautiful downtown area as stated in numerous strategic plans. Schweich: asked more questions about the city’s appetite to support public parking needs in the down- town since its ordinances support that type of parking for businesses. Hedberg: asked Copper Creek to provide further detailed information on the project cost, jobs and public vs. private parking related to the proposed redevelopment project. He then asked each Commissioner to provide comments on their level of support to Copper Creek’s proposed project. Chromy: supports the proposed project as an important addition to downtown Prior Lake. Bump: supports the proposed project, but is asking that metrics be used to further evaluate it. Keeney: supports that downtown Prior Lake needs further commercial development, and he likes to see some effort being done that would find a solution to downtown parking deficiencies. 2 Hedberg: thinks that a bigger concept is needed to address downtown parking issues in addition to work- ing with Copper Creek. B. Phase Downtown Parking Study – Economic Development Incentive Grant Program Rogness: reviewed the Scott County CDA’s Economic Development Incentive Program for technical as- sistance. Up to $30,000 can be received from the CDA as a grant for various types of economic develop- ment activities that relate to economic development. They focus primarily on studies, marketing, etc. A one-to-one match is required. Rogness asked the EDA to consider contributing up to $20,000 from its Pro- fessional Services account in the 2014 EDA budget as matching funds for a downtown parking analysis to be completed by a private consultant. Keeney: supported this request as long as the consultant will make a firm recommendation on the best site to pursue as future public parking, including a structured ramp. McCabe: said that staff can return with a draft application for review by the EDA at its May meeting, prior to the June 2 deadline. MOTION BY BUMP, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO APPROVE A BUDGET ALLOCATION UP TO $20,000 AS MATCHING FUNDS FROM ITS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUDGET FOR A SCOTT COUNTY CDA EDI TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION. Ayes by Hedberg, Bump, Keeney and Chromy. The motion carried. C. Property Acquisition on Colorado Street Boyles: summarized the status of two properties on Colorado Street that are potential city acquisitions to extend Arcadia Street from Colorado to Pleasant Streets. 4577 Colorado Street is for sale by owner at around $120,000, and 4589 Colorado Street is for sale by realtor at $214,500. The City Council’s directive is for the EDA to prepare a report with recommendations on the appropriateness of acquiring these two properties. Rogness: listed some options for the near-term and long-term uses of these properties, even if Arcadia is not extended between Colorado and Pleasant. Examples include public parking for other uses that redevelop near the newly signalized Arcadia and CH21 intersection or land combined with other property to the east for redevelopment across from the dance studio. The more expensive house could also be leased by the city to an occupant in the interim. Chromy: asked if there might be backlash from the neighborhood about the city’s acquisitions? Hedberg: described his vision of downtown whereby more higher density residential units will eventually be added. Keeney: described how an acquisition now from willing sellers would create much less anxiety and public cost when compared to a future acquisition from unwilling sellers. Bump: asked why the city would consider acquiring two properties when four are ultimately needed for the Arcadia extension? Keeney: felt that based on a plan, these two acquisitions would result in slowly obtaining the necessary property to implement the plan. Hedberg: agreed that this is a good plan and approach to help the south downtown area. Bump: also agreed that if this is the plan, there is no issue; if it is not the plan, then it may not be a good use of public resources. Boyles: said that he would recommend bonding to pay the estimated $310,000 cost, or to use city re- serves. MOTION BY BUMP, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO SEND AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACQUIRE THESE TWO PROPERTIES ON COLORADO STREET. Ayes by Hedberg, Bump, Keeney and Chromy. The motion carried. 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Draft May 19, 2014 Agenda. 3 Rogness reviewed the draft agenda for May 19. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY KEENEY, SECONDED BY BUMP TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. ___________________________ Frank Boyles, Executive Director 4