Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 16, 1998PRIOR LAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING Monday, November' 16, 1998 5:30 p.m. Fire Station City Council Chambers I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Call to Order at 6:00 p.m.: Present were: Commissioners Kedrowski, Schenck, and Underferth, Executive Director Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Planning Director Rye, Planning Coordinator Kansier, and Assistant City Manager Woodson. Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Underferth led the Pledge of Allegiance and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Approval of Minutes - MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 1998 EDA MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Schenck, and Underferth, the motion carried. , Consent Agenda A. None Presentations A. John Mesenbrink and Larry Gensmer - Deerfield Industrial Park Status Report. Boyles: Staff will arrange this item to be on the agenda for the December meeting unless Messrs. Mesenbrink and Gensmer do not intend to address the EDA. Public Hearings A. None Old Business A. Review Proposals Received to Prepare Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Boyles: Introduced the item. There were 6 proposals received. Staffhas done some preliminary review. The EDA has the following options: 1) conduct a work session to review all 6 proposals, 2) have staff narrow down to 3 or 4 and then conduct a work session, or 3) have staff narrow to 3 and then conduct interviews at the work session. I:\TEMP\CITYCOUN~DA~ED111698.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Kedrowski: Inquired as to what type of standard would be used to narrow to 3 or 4 proposals. Boyles: We have done some preliminary review and looked at 1) length of project completion, 2) the responsiveness of the desired elements i.e. the redevelopment master plan, the information strategy, financial analysis, development timeline and promotional marketing brochure, 3) the degree to which the firm or firms have taken the opportunity to learn about Prior Lake and to find out our specific needs as to opposed to just giving a general one proposal fits all, 4) the credentials of the principles in the firm (i.e. the persons actually working on this job and have they done similar kinds of work), 5) involvement of stake holders did they include stake holders in this proposal or is this a plan done aside and apart from the stake holders, 6) the availability of the firm are they busy or available to complete the work. Kedrowski: Do you believe you can narrow 2 or 3 firms using this criteria? Boyles: Yes. Kedrowski: I'm in favor of staff eliminating a couple of these firms and focus on 3 or 4 for the EDA to review and have an interview session with these 3 or 4. $chenck: Agreed with Kedrowski. The EDA should do the intervieWing at a workshop. Underferth: Direction to staff needed. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE A PRELIMINARY ELIMINATION OF PROPOSALS DOWN TO 3 OR 4 WHATEVER THEY FEEL APPROPRIATE WITH FINALISTS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE EDA IN A WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENT FOR ONE HOUR TO SELECT A FINAL FIRM. Rye: Cautioned the Council to make sure that they allow enough time for the EDA to get a good idea as to the qualifications of the company. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Schenck, and Underferth, the motion carded. VIII. New Business A. Consider potential lot split in Waterfront Passage Business Office Park. Boyles: Introduced the item and summarized the staff report, including the two alternatives for the EDA to consider 1) splitting the 4.5 acre parcel or 2) to keep the parcel as is and work towards one large development. I:\TEMP\CITYCOUNXEDA~D111698.DOC 2 Guenette: Staff report does a good job explifning the issue. Looking for direction from the EDA. Underferth: The upside is we would only split it if both were sold at the same time. Guenette: That is my recommendation. Underferth: The down side is what? If later on they should go out of business or leave the community it would not be as marketable because of the size of the parcel? Guenette: I think those buildings have a substantial market for users. I don't think there is a down side. There are two different parties inquiring to build smaller buildings on the property if split. Kedrowski: I would support the split if we have buyers for both parcels up front. If not, then leave it alone. I'm interested in selling the property. Let's move forward. Rye:. Mentioned the TIF impacts. Schenck: Are the potential buyers located in other cities now? Guenette: They are located in the general area. Schenck: Inquired on the tax impact and market ability. Guenette: Clarified the issues raised by Commissioner Schenck. Underferth: Prefer the original plan we outlined because of the wetland and better valuation. Gaenette: The parties are interested in developing the property. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK INVESTIGATE THE LOT SPLIT OF THE PROPERTY AND SELL TO THE TWO DEVELOPERS IF EITHER ONE DOES NOT COME TO THE TABLE THEN THE DEAL DOES NOT GO THROUGH. Schenck: Is there a danger in splitting the parcel? Guenette: We will not split unless we have firm commitments in hand from both parties to purchase those properties. I:\TEMP\CITYCOUN~DA'~ED111698.DOC 3 Schenck: Questioned the current persl~ctive of the two purchasers. Guenette: They are manufacturing service related companies. One has an outside storage issue which I have apprised them needs to meet the ordinance. We could end up with a better user. Boyles: I encourage.EDA to stick with one large parcel as originally outlined. The staff would then proceed as originally directed to mitigate the wetland and poor soil conditions. Kedrowski: Do we have any viable alternative to these people in the community if we let this go? Guenette: None that I'm aware of. $chenck: Would they work with Wensmann? Guenette: They're not really appropriate for what Wensmann wants to do with their property. He's looking at more up scale development then what these smaller facilities are looking to do. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski; nayes by Schenck, and'Underferth, the motion failed. Underferth: Is the intention is to proceed with the mitigation next spring? Boyles:. It is my recollection that the EDA did direct staffto initiate those efforts and we will do so. MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY UNDERFERTH THAT WE RETAIN THE REMAINING 4.5 ACRE PARCEL IN THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION AND ADD THE PLAN TO MITIGATE THE WETLAND, SOILS AND BOUNDARY ISSUES. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Schenck, and Underferth, the motion carried. IX. Other Business A. Review !998/99 EDA Goals and Objectives MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO TABLE THE REVIEW OF THE 1998/99 EDA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES UNTIL WE HAVE A FULL EDA COMMITTEE. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Schenck, and Underferth, the motion carried. I:\TEMP\CITYCOUN~DAkED 111698.DOC B. Review EDA Bylaws MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO TABLE THE EDA BYLAWS RECOMMENDED CHANGES UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Schenck, and Underferth, the motion carded. Xe Announcements or Correspondence A. Reminder: November 17, 1998 - Business Retention Workshop 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers at the Fire Station Boyles: Reminded the EDA of the workshop. Other: Guenette: Updated the commissioners that he has been working with potential developers on multi-family housing developments that could be done in conjunction with the downtown redevelopment effort. He has been in contact with those people again and they are proceeding with development of blueprints and costing out the project which is being revised to be with more density and they will be back to the EDA with that information to reanalyze the economic viability of it and whether it will fit in certain geographic configurations downtown. Underferth: My understanding is a replacement will be named for the EDA at tonight's Council meeting and the next meeting will be full strength. Boyles: Updated the EDA on process for filling vacancy. XI. Adjournment MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO ADJOURN. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Schenck, and Underferth, the motion carried. The meeting adjourne. 6:33 p.m. Recording Secretary I:\TEMP\CITYCOUN~DAXED111698.DOC 5