Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 PRIOR LAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, December 18, 2006 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. 1) Call to Order 2) Approval of Agenda 3) Consider Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2006 4) Consent Agenda. Those items on the EDA Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda. Unless the President, a Commissioner or member of the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and considered separately, items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a roll call vote. Any item removed from the Consent Agenda shall be placed on the EDA agenda as a separate category. 5) Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 6) Public Hearings: a) None 7) Presentations: a) None 8) Old Business: a) Consider recommendation to City Council to authorize the execution of the City's Standard Agreement for Professional Services to develop illustrated Downtown Design Guidelines. b) Consider recommendation to City Council to authorize the execution of the City's Standard Agreement for Professional Services for the provision of redevelopment and financial advisory services for Redevelopment of Blocks 2 and 4. 9) New Business a) None 10) Other Business 11) Adjournment R:\Agenda Reports\2006\Deeember 18, 2006\EDA - Dee 18 2006\Dee 18, 2006 EDA Agenda.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 City of Prior Lake Economic Development Authority Draft Meeting Minutes September 5, 2006 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by President LeMair at 5: 1 0 p.m. Present were Commissioners Dornbush, Erickson, Haugen, LeMair, and Millar, Executive Director Boyles, EDA Attorney Pace, Economic Development Director Snook and Secretary Green. Aooroval of Aaenda MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSH TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Dornbush, Erickson, Haugen, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Aooroval of Minutes MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY HAUGEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 2006, MEETING AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Dornbush, Erickson, Haugen, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. New Business Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Staff to Develop and Issue Request for Proposals to Amend C-3 Zone Design Standards and Develop Downtown Illustrated Design Guidelines Economic Development Director Snook commented that current guidelines for downtown development were approved in 2000 and lack specific details for building design. He gave examples of other communities that have design standards with specific guidelines. Comments: Erickson: asked if current specifications for the Rock Creek building were not required. Snook: Replied that some specifications were strongly encouraged for that building, but that lack of specific designs made it difficult to enforce specifications for the dance studio. Erickson: Asked why particular specifications were required for one building and not the other. Boyles: Replied that the City had owned the Rock Creek property and the sale was subject to a development agreement that indicated building specifications. The dance studio property was a private sale. Snook: Noted that having a design guideline will be helpful to show a developer what is desired. Haugen: Commented that there were different priorities and expectations in 2000. Dornbush: Asked the amount budgeted for a consultant on this project. Snook: $10,000 Dornbush: Commented that she liked variety and would not want the standards to be too stringent. Asked if the Wayzata sample could be adapted to Prior Lake rather than hiring a consultant to develop a design. LeMair: Asked what kind of document the city would get with the design plan. Snook: Replied that it would be unique to our community and would be a document that would help developers and staff know what is desired and allowed. It would not call for every building to look the same, but would be clear about what is desired. Dornbush: Asked if a committee should go over it after the consultant is finished. www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes September 5. 2006 Haugen: Replied that it would be the EDA and the Council. Pace: Commented that an amendment to the zoning ordinance would be subject to Council approval. Boyles: Noted that a public hearing would also be required. Millar: Stated that makes sense to tweak what was approved in 2000 since growth helps the vision become more clear on what we want in the downtown. Many residents are pleased with what has been done so far. As we redevelop south of CR 21, the city would want a unified plan. In the long-term, $10,000 would be well spent if planning is pulled together and a consultant can give us focus. LeMair: Agreed with Dornbush that we want creativity in our buildings and stated it would have been good to have this done six years ago. Believes there should be some leeway for different looks and guidelines that are too stringent would stop development. Will support this because the city needs guidelines for developers. Haugen: Commented that Lakefront Plaza and the Rock Creek building at three stories and the Speiker building at two stories allows for differentiation. Noted that a design guideline could aid in having something that is special. Dornbush: Asked if different consulting firms would be approached. Snook: Responded that a request for proposal would be put out in typical avenues such as the League of Minnesota Cities. Dornbush: Asked if the EDA chooses the consultant, and stated she believes it will be good to have an overall design plan. Erickson: Clarified that this would be guidelines for zoning and the developer could come to the Council to seek a variance where needed. Millar: Asked if this is specifically about developing guidelines and noted that most architects like to be creative. Boyles: Replied that guidelines are reinforced by ordinance so the ordinance could have provisions to provide flexibility but the city would not want to be too ambiguous. Millar: Noted that it has to make sense and have leeway for some character. Pace: Commented that the city should not set guidelines planning to have variances, but rather certain elements should be standard. Dornbush: Noted that if flexibility is built into the guidelines, variances wouldn't be necessary. Pace: Noted the criteria could indicate things like acceptable kinds of building supplies and the architect could select from that palette. MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSH TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 06-02EDA AUTHORIZING STAFF TO DEVELOP AND ISSUE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO AMEND C-3 ZONE DESIGN STANDARDS AND DEVELOP DOWNTOWN ILLUSTRATED DESIGN GUIDELINES VOTE: Ayes by Dornbush, Erickson, Haugen, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Staff to Retain a Consultant to Assist in Developing a Request for Qualifications and Proposals for Redevelopment of Block 2 and Block 4 in the Downtown Area and Provide Financial Advisory and Other Redevelopment Related Services; and Issue the Request for Qualifications and Proposals for Redevelopment of Blocks 2 and 4 Economic Development Director Snook commented that the Economic Development Advisory Committee recommends a consultant be retained to assist in developing a RFQ-RFP for the redevelopment of Block 2 and 4 downtown. He reported on the status of existing businesses in that area and stated that a developer has approached the city regarding development of Block 4 less the Library and the Speiker building. 2 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes September 5. 2006 Comments: Millar: asked if a consultant is really needed to help develop a RFQ-RFP rather than using staff expertise to do it. Snook: Replied that this integrated approach of redeveloping entire blocks would require a consultant to be in on the ground floor to help develop the RFP, establish a TIF and set up the financing. Boyles: Noted that the city developed the RFP when working on the Rock Creek and Village Commerce buildings with assistance from the city attorney. This would be a more complex project with a larger amount of money at stake. Millar: Commented that business consultants usually received funding on the back end with interest rates, etc. and asked whether this approach would work rather than hiring a consultant. Boyles: Replied that there is very small group of people with expertise in public financing and this would require an expert. LeMair: Commented that much money would be involved and if mistakes were made, the legal bills could be high. Since this plan would affect the community for many years, it would be money well spent to approach the plan correctly. Snook: Noted that the advantage of having a consultant is that they have experience. Millar: Agreed it makes sense to get a consultant for this but encouraged the EDA to do as much as we can in-house. Dornbush: Asked if current owners would be forced out of buildings. LeMair: Replied that the developer would be negotiating market price. Haugen: Commented that the city has spoken with the VFW and indicated we want it to be part of the downtown, and has spoken with Monnen's to state that when they are ready to move, the city will want to redevelop. The city is not forcing anyone to move, but there will be a right time for redevelopment to happen. LeMair: Noted that some buildings are vacant or in disrepair. Snook: Asked Dornbush if she was referring to eminent domain. Dornbush: Not necessarily. Snook: Stated the process would be that the developer would approach the property owners and the city would develop a TIF. Haugen: Commented that when considering a consultant vs. staff performing this development, the city should be sensitive to specialization. Dornbush: Asked if the city can use developer fees to help recoup some of the cost of this consultant. Boyles: Responded that he does not believe we can use developer fees. LeMair: Asked if the consultant's fees are in the budget. Snook: Affirmed. Erickson: Asked if any of the properties wanted to move and whether or not the developer already approached them. LeMair: Stated he has met with the developer and there seems to be consensus that if things worked out the property owner would be open to discussions. Snook: A reason to put out a request for proposal is to learn who could provide the optimal development. Erickson: Asked if the city is driving up prices by putting this area through redevelopment for people who don't want to be redeveloped. Boyles: Responded that the city can plan long term or wait and react as people bring property available. This concept would try to coordinate the effort to get the best possible value for the city. Millar: Commented that this proposal seems consistent with 2030 vision and believes it is incumbent on the city to create a climate to encourage downtown redevelopment. This is creating a process not pushing an agenda. LeMair: Agreed it would be creating a map for anyone who comes to ask. 3 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes September 5. 2006 Haugen: Commented about the status of properties and noted there are enough positives to have a coordinated, pro-active process. Erickson: Reiterated that he does not want to put undue pressure on any property owners. LeMair: Stated it is prudent to continue. Dornbush: Asked if it would result in a strip mall look in downtown. Pace: Responded that the city can build the design criteria. MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSH TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 06-03EDA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RETAIN A CONSULTANT TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPING A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF BLOCK 2 AND BLOCK 4 IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND PROVIDE FINANCIAL ADVISORY AND OTHER REDEVELOPMENT RELATED SERVICES; AND ISSUE THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF BLOCKS 2 AND 4 VOTE: Ayes by Dornbush, Erickson, Haugen, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Adiournment MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY HAUGEN TO ADJOURN. With all members in favor, the motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 6:07 p.m. Frank Boyles, Executive Director Charlotte Green, Recording Secretary 4