Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Member Kiefer noted the City has some in-house signage capability that would reduce the cost <br />of sign age. He stated he would like the EDA to support what can be done in terms of the signage. <br />In terms of the cost, he would be in favor of the EDA participating with the non-lit signage. He is <br />not certain that he would be in favor of participating with the lighted signage, but he would be <br />supportive of the activity. <br /> <br />Economic Development Coordinator Sullivan pointed out it would be a thin line for the Board to <br />buy signage. He suggested that any participation of the EDA should be of a secondary nature, <br />and that the onus be put on the ownership group to make the signs. He noted it is a distinct <br />possibility that the signs will be temporary construction signs. <br /> <br />Member Strommen suggested investigating what would be routine signage for MnDDT or the <br />County to participate with, such as u-turn signs and temporary construction signs. She stated the <br />importance of being provided with firm numbers in order to make a decision regarding the <br />EDA's participation with the signage project. <br /> <br />Economic Development Director advised if the EDA determines to fully fund the signage project <br />it would be within the budget parameters to allocate the full $30,000 that has been estimated. <br /> <br />The Board expressed support of the signage plan as proposed in concept by the Sunfish <br />Commons ownership group, but that firm numbers on the signage plan are needed in order to <br />make a decision regarding the EDA's participation with the signage project. <br /> <br />Chairperson Riley commented that the increase in the existing pylon signage square footage does <br />not seem to be a request related to the median. <br /> <br />Member Strommen suggested waiving the conditional use permit application fee. She stressed <br />the importance of being careful about precedent and the need to be clear about what the EDA <br />would be paying for and why, even though this is a unique case. <br /> <br />There was discussion of the time frame associated with the process for approval of the signage <br />plan, and that the next EDA meeting is scheduled in April. <br /> <br />Mr. Gandel stated Gaughan Companies would like to proceed as soon as possible. They will <br />begin today to engage a comprehensive signage plan to present to the EDA for review. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Board was that the Sunfish Commons signage plan be presented to the EDA <br />again with itemized costs and staff to determine how much the County and MnDDT would <br />participate in the non-lit signage, and that a special meeting be scheduled if necessary to <br />determine the percentage of ED A participation in the signage plan. <br /> <br />Case #3: <br /> <br />Consider Sale of Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway North Industrial Park Plat2 <br /> <br />Economic Development Coordinator Sullivan reviewed that the City has been working with Tag <br />Machine to locate a 10,000 to 15,000 square foot manufacturing facility to Gateway North <br /> <br />Economic Development Authority/February 14,2008 <br />Page 5 of8 <br />