The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05 16 2016 EDA Minutes FINAL Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes May 16, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER President Hedberg called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Present were Hedberg, Keeney, Chromy, Choudek and Sheehan-Kerber. Also present were Executive Director Boyles, Community & Economic De- velopment Director Rogness, Community Development Specialist McCabe and Treasurer Uram. Others present included Lloyd Erbaugh representing the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC), Lisa Freese representing Scott County transportation, and Gerry Hughes and Adam Proehl representing the Technology Village Board of Directors. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY CHOUDEK, SECONDED BY SHEEHAN-KERBER TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH AGENDA ITEM 8C BEING REMOVED RELATED TO GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL PARKING. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, Choudek and Sheehan-Kerber; Chromy was absent/late. The motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY KEENEY, SECONDED BY CHOUDEK TO APPROVE THE APRIL 18, 2016 MEETING MINUTES. Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney and Choudek; Sheehan-Kerber abstained; Chromy was absent/late. The motion carried. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. EDA 2016 Revenue & Expenditure Report (4/30/16) MOTION BY KEENEY, SECONDED BY CHOUDEK TO APPROVE THE 4/30/16 EDA REVENUE & EX- PENDITURE REPORT. Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, Chromy, Choudek and Sheehan-Kerber. The motion carried. 5. REMOVED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS No items were removed from the Consent Agenda 6. PUBLIC HEARING No Public Hearings 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Technology Village Analysis and Expansion Plan Rogness: asked the Commissioners whether they felt a need to have the report author, Jim Greenwood, join the meeting discussion via a phone line. Hedberg: responded that he is mindful of the CDA grant agreement deadline on May 31, and suggested that the EDA accept the final report, but then schedule discussion at a future meeting . Chromy: agreed with this approach, stating that it is a well written report. Hughes: recommended that the EDA and TVBOD hold a joint meeting to have further discussion. 2 Hedberg: agreed with this approach, including a proposed 3-hour meeting in June to accomplish that task in addition to normal EDA business items. MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO ACCEPT THE FINAL REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS AND EXPANSION PLAN FOR TECHNOLOGY VILLAGE BY GREENWOOD CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, Chromy, Choudek and Sheehan-Kerber. The motion carried. B. Downtown Planning Reports – 2000 Downtown Development Guide Boyles: reviewed previous EDA direction to focus discussion on the future of Prior Lake’s downtown using a previous report completed in 2000, the “Downtown Development Guide”. Hedberg: asked whether this document moves the city ahead or not? He further supported using this pre- vious guide as a basis for further updates since this guide appears to already support a positive vision for downtown as well as having an implementation plan. Choudek: agreed to use this document by further identifying what has been accomplished since 2000 and what things are left to do. Sheehan-Kerber: said that transparency is very important, which can be done with a visual map; she fur- ther wants the EDA to identify what the city can control and what it cannot control, resulting in the identifica- tion of who is ultimately responsible for implementation. Chromy: feels that walkability needs to be a key element in a viable and active downtown. Hedberg: emphasized that Alternative C recognized Arcadia as the main future corridor and link through downtown, but a more direct connection to the north entryway from TH13 is no longer feasible. He also identified multi-family housing as an important addition to a plan in order to increase the number of people actively using the downtown area. Keeney: felt that nearly all of the items shown in Concept B have been completed, and he further sup- ported a newly updated composite and redevelopment plan. Chromy: reminded everyone that previous discussion on this topic supported expanding the boundaries of downtown planning further south and east, including a vision that connects downtown to Southlake Village. Keeney: further supported a southerly connection, but he also recognized the need for a strong city com- mitment to provide infrastructure before private investment will occur. Hedberg: suggested that staff update the status of Option C by identifying what things have been done, what remaining things need to be done, and what things may not need to be done anymore based on other factors since 2000. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Property Acquisition for Highway 13 & 21 Project McCabe: summarized a proposal whereby the EDA would potentially acquire property at the northwest cor- ner of CSAH 21 and TH 13, referred to as the ReMax office site. The property is currently for sale, and it may be an opportunity acquisition for the reconstruction of that highway intersection and for the provision of additional downtown parking. It could also become a future redevelopment site. Freese: said that Scott County would be willing to take the lead on the acquisition if the EDA would be will- ing to provide funding. Sheehan-Kerber: asked whether the impacts of this property on transportation applies more to the state, county or city. Hedberg: thought this request may be premature since there are no final plans yet for the intersection. Boyles: identified advantages to the city of getting this property now from a willing seller versus later from an unwilling seller. Keeney: said that there should be a more clear reason for acquisition by the EDA, which based on this discussion, he thought was to keep development away from this property due to the pending highway pro- ject. Maybe the county should be the driver in this case. Chromy: noted that this type of public purchase may not be supported very well by the citizens of Prior Lake due to uncertainties of the highway project. 3 EDA Commissioners: all agreed not to take action to acquire this property. . B. City Commerce Avenue Extension – County Highway 42 Project Rogness: provided a brief summary of options related to the extension of Commerce Avenue to Rutgers Street as part of the CSAH 42 project. Currently, Commerce provides a connection at a signalized inter- section on TH 13 and with a ¾ intersection on CSAH 42; the CSAH 42 connection is to be modified or changed to a right-in / right-out, or it is to be extended to Rutgers Street. Boyles: emphasized that City Council approval is necessary for the complete CSAH 42 project, and that an EDA recommendation is desired in relationship to economic development aspects of the Commerce Av- enue connection. Freese: said that the county has acquired five parcels along the south side of CSAH 42 in order to make the Commerce connection, which has been part of its plans for many years . Chromy: felt that any option didn’t really provide opportunities for future commercial development on re- maining remnant parcels unless those remnants were combined with other residential properties to the south as a redevelopment project. Choudek: thought a commercial building along the highway would actually provide a visual/sound buffer for the remaining residents. Keeney: emphasized the city’s municipal consent process with a decision based primarily on safety. He also identified the city’s funding contribution to this project, which would be a portion of the total estimated $320,000 cost; the federal government would pay 60 percent. Chromy: asked whether any businesses had been contacted about these options; he talked about how the city had been short-changed before on access to CSAH 42 in this area. Sheehan-Kerber: asked whether the street extension is going in regardless, and whether new commercial development opportunities is an important issue. Hedberg: reminded everyone that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and corresponding rezoning of this area to commercial would be necessary, which has no guaranty as to the outcome. Keeney: questioned whether the street connection is needed at all, including whether the cost makes sense for the city’s obligation. Freese: said that the Commerce Avenue extension project will actually not need local city funding due to the use of new county sales tax revenue instead. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECONDED BY CHROMY TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE MOST NORTHERLY ALIGNMENT BE CHOSEN WITH NO IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BUT WITH POSSIBILITIES FOR MVEC EXPANSION AND FUTURE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, WHILE IMPROVING ACCESS TO EXISTING BUSINESSES . Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, Chromy and Choudek; Nays by Sheehan-Kerber. The motion carried. 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Commissioner Comments No time was available to review this agenda item. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY CHOUDEK, SECONDED BY CHROMY TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 6:01 p.m. ___________________________ Frank Boyles, Executive Director