Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 15 2014 EDA MinutesPRlq� ~O 9 U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ;NNPESO"' Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes September 15, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER President Hedberg called the meeting to order at 3:57 p.m. Present were Hedberg, Keeney and Chromy. Also present was Executive Director Boyles, Community & Economic Development Director Rogness, Community Development Specialist McCabe, and Technology Village Board Chair Hughes. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney and Chromy. The motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 18, 2014 MEETING MINUTES. Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney and Chromy. The motion carried. 4. CONSENT AGENDA No Consent Agenda items 5. REMOVED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS No items were removed from the Consent Agenda 6. PUBLIC HEARING No Public Hearings 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Architectural Design Standards — Proposed Amendment Rogness: reviewed staff's proposed amendments to Subsection 1107.2200, Architectural Design, of the city's zoning ordinance. He noted that further research shows that Savage and Shakopee both have very similar design standards for commercial and industrial buildings. In addition, Savage specifically prohibits pole buildings, and Shakopee restricts them through their design standards. Therefore, staff is recom- mending that pole buildings not be allowed as commercial or industrial buildings in Prior Lake. Rogness also noted an email from Commissioner Choudek in support of the proposed ordinance amendments. Chromy: asked whether a variance would be needed if someone proposed a pole building. Rogness: responded that would be difficult based on criteria for granting variances, including practical dif- ficulties not related to cost. Keeney: asked whether the city may want to consider allowing pole buildings in the Welcome Avenue in- dustrial or orderly annexation areas; he also asked whether allowing them under a conditional use permit process made sense. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com Hedberg: stated that Prior Lake is permanently on the edge of the metropolitan area, and therefore, sup- port of pole buildings in the annexation area makes sense due to its more rural character and use. Other- wise, he supports the proposed amendments to align with Savage and Shakopee. Keeney: identified both positive and negative economic benefits that have been discussed previously re- lated to higher tax base, but a possible delay in development activity, especially in Deerfield. Hedberg: believes this change would result in a longer development time period with higher building standards. Keeney: suggested a possible change that would be more restrictive on the section that allows an existing building to not meet the new design standards with an expansion of 50% or less. He asked about the de- sign standards related to residential projects. Rogness: stated that the architectural design standards apply to multi -family residential only, and that it's possible to reduce the 50% threshold for building expansions. MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL INITIATE A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1107.2200, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH SOME FURTHER CHANGES AS DISCUSSED BY THE EDA. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney and Chromy. The motion carried. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Downtown Redevelopment Property Acquisition Inventory Rogness: summarized an inventory that McCabe completed showing properties in the downtown area that are either owned by the city, single family homes, or in the corridor that extends Arcadia from Colorado to Pleasant. Rogness asked the Commissioners for input on how this information may be useful to develop priorities for future public acquisitions in the downtown area. Since the city receives inquiries from property owners interested in selling, it would be beneficial to have a set of priorities rather than to react to each in- quiry without guidance. Rogness also identified other properties not highlighted on the map that are non- conforming uses related to automobile sales and service. Keeney: said the city should also be considering priorities for the disposition of city -owned property; for example, should those properties acquired south of County Highway 21 and Arcadia be disposed of for fur- ther commercial development? The city should not be in the business of owning most of downtown. Hedberg: was not aware of the extent of non -conforming uses in downtown. He, too, wondered whether some city -owned properties could be disposed of now or in the future for development. Chromy: identified the Mertens property as key to future downtown redevelopment, and mentioned the city -owned parcels surrounding that property to be added some day for a larger project. He also suggested that the EDA consider acquisitions in light of an overall plan for downtown, especially due to the sentiment against City Hall being associated with unpopular recent actions. Keeney: suggested that a logical priority is for the remaining house on Dakota to be the highest priority followed by the Mertens property. The other two houses on Main would be okay at some point within a third tier of priority. Hedberg: agreed that the Professional Building is still something likely needed in the long term with the redevelopment of a larger area at the Mertens site. Rogness: suggested that the EDA may want to consider putting a hold on further discussion while the downtown parking analysis is completed or at least underway. Commissioners: agreed to wait on further discussion until staff provides additional information from the parking study. 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Draft October 20, 2014 Agenda. Rogness reviewed the draft agenda for October 20 with the Commissioners. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. With all in favor, the meet- ing adjourned at 5:32 p.m. Frank Boyles, Executive Director