Laserfiche WebLink
was to have higher design standards. He did not believe that would be appropriate to have the <br /> standards community wide. <br /> Member Williams stated that she appreciates that the desire to stay strong to the architectural <br /> desires. She stated that with retail that could become a concern. She stated that it is important in <br /> the western and southern portion of The COR, and she would not want a development to look out <br /> at the back of a building. She stated that it is important to have four-sided design for buildings, <br /> so that you prevent a development from looking out at the back of a strip mall with no design <br /> and just back doors. She stated if you are going to require four-sided development, the City <br /> should also ensure that the sign ordinance would allow for signage on all sides. She provided <br /> examples of four-sided development that has been well done in The COR. <br /> Community Development Director stated that there is flexibility to allow signage on all sides but <br /> the conflict often comes with the type of signage allowed. He noted that the discussion would <br /> play out with the Stonebrook Academy application as that moves forward. He noted that <br /> business will have their front entrance on the side opposite of Sunwood Drive and therefore the <br /> four-sided design will be important as the back of their building will be facing Sunwood. <br /> Member Williams stated that she would want to ensure that the back of the building facing <br /> Sunwood still looks like the front as well, since that is the main roadway for The COR. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill summarized the input from the EDA regarding the <br /> vision statement, noting that the EDA would like to be market driven rather than dictating the <br /> market, with an emphasis of that discussion related to different types of retail users; for parking <br /> the EDA would be open to all parking options, but does not want to force shared/structured <br /> parking on developers; and in regard to architecture the EDA would like to emphasize four-sided <br /> design and would want to ensure signage is allowed for all sides if desired. <br /> Member Riley stated that he feels the vision statement needs more amendments than what was <br /> mentioned. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill noted that this is intended to be an interim document <br /> and if the master developer route is chosen, that group would work with the EDA and Planning <br /> Commission to further develop the plan and implementation of the plan. He noted that the <br /> Planning Commission would focus on developing the plan while the EDA would focus on <br /> implementation of the plan. He noted that the document has been setup to allow for additional <br /> input from a master developer. <br /> Motion by Member Skaff, seconded by Member Brunt, to recommend to City Council that <br /> approve The COR Interim Development Plan for public comment, incorporating the consensus <br /> statements from the EDA. <br /> Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Steffen, Members Skaff, Brunt, Burandt, Riley, and <br /> Williams. Voting No: None. Absent: Member Hardin. <br /> 4.02: State of Minnesota Economic Development Marketing Initiative <br /> Economic Development Authority/May 25,2017 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br />