HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-88 Council Workshop MinutesMINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP P1EETING
CITY COUNCIL
LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA
June 1, 1988
Pur•suant to due call and notice ther•eof a wor~kshop meeting of the
Council of the City of Little Canada, P9innesota was held on the
lst day of June, 1988 in the Council Chamber•s of the City Center•
located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City.
Mayor• Michael Fahey chair~ed the meeting and called it to or•der~ at
8:00 P.M. and the following member•s of the Council wer~e pr•esent at
roll call:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor• P1r~. Michael Fahey
Councilman Mr~. Bill Blesener•
Councilman Mr~. Rick Collova
Councilman Mr•. Jim LaValle
Councilwoman Mrs. Beverly Scalze
ALSO PRESEPIT: Ci ty Pl anner• Mr•. Steve Gri ttman
Recor~ding Secr•etar~y Mr~s. Kathy Glanzer•
Boosalis The City Planner• r•eviewed in detail his repor~t dated June 1, 1988 r•egar•ding
Development Rice At C II Tax Incr~ement Financing Ana1ysis. It was pointed out by the
Planner• that this analysis is based on a 40 foot setback for~ the str•ip
center~ and that figur~es for~ a 60 foot setback wer•e not put together~ since
a deficit has appear•ed consider•ing the pr•oposal with a 40 foot setback.
The Planner also pointed out that the bottom line figur•e does not include
r•evenues from assessments for• the r~oad impr•ovement.
Scalze pointed out that the r•esidential pr•oper~ty was not includetl along
with the commer•cial for• gener•ation of TIF.
The Planner• agr~eed and pointed out that the pr•oblem with including
r•esi denti al pr~oper•ty i s that r•esi denti al pr~oper•ty does not gener•ate
much tax r•evenue and also a firm timeline would be needed for• when the
houses would be developed. Single-family r•esidential is not often used
because such development is usually speculative.
Fahey suggested that the r•esidential pr•oper~ty be included to gener•ate
additional funds under~ the TIF. Fahey pointed out that ther~e will
cer•tainly be some homes built within the next few year~s which will
add towar•ds decr•easing the deficit pr•ojected by the Planner~ in his r•epor~t.
Fahey also pointed out that if the City assessed the $117,000 of impr~ove-
ment costs that would not be picked up by special assessment, as pr•ojected
by the Planner~, the deficit of $60,000 pr•ojected by the Planner• would
become a sur•plus of $50,000. Including revenues fr~om a few single-family
homes would br•ing this amount up higher~.
The City Planner~ pointed out that the tax r•evenue fr•om a few single-family
homes will not make a big difference in paying off the TIF bond.
Page -1-
MINUTES
City Council
June 1, 1988
Fahey again stated that he wanted to include the single-family homes in
the TIF and pointed out that this r~evenue can be used in other• distr~icts
as well.
The Planner• stated that the City will captur•e the incr•ement fr•om the
single-family homes if they ar~e built. However•, if the City assumes the
homes ar~e going to be built and the bond is sold on that basis and they
ar•e.not built, ther•e could be a shor•tfall in the bond issue.
Scalze pointed out information that was passed on to the Economic
Development Committee fr•om the Planner~'s office indicating that there
ar•e some restr~ictions on the use which the str•ip center could be put
to under• TIF.
Plick Boosalis, the developer• of the pr•oject Rice At C II, stated that
he would have to be awar•e of these restr•ictions.
Boosalis also pointed out that ther~e ar•e other• expenses not figur•ed into
the Planner•'s calculations such as car•rying costs, marketing costs, soil
corrections.
Fahey also pointed out that the Planner• has conser~vatively figur•ed the
sale pr~ice of the lots at $20,000.
Fahey asked the effect on the pr•oject if 20 feet wer•e cut fr•om the building.
The Planner~ again stated that he did not figure this scenar•io since the
pr•oject as pr•oposed r•uns into deficits accor•ding to his calculations.
Boosalis pointed out that ther•e would be added deficits with the costs
that have not been included in the calculations. Reduction in the size
of the building would be an added deficit. Boosalis also pointed out
that ther•e will be costs for•r•Amoval of buildings and clear•ing land
that have not been included.
Blesener pointed out that a 20 foot increase in the norther•n sethack
would leave Boosalis with 91% of his building squar•e footage, while a
10 foot incr~ease in the nor•thern setback would leave 95 1/2% of the
square footage of the building as being proposed.
Fahey suggested that the building could be made wider~ fr•om east to west
to make up for the r~eduction in length fr~om nor~th to south.
Boosalis expl~ined that the 60 foot depth of the building as being pr~oposed
is an ideal depth in ter~ms of r•enting space for~ gener~al pur•poses.
Tim Townsley, Iona Lane r~esident, agr•eed that if the length of the building
wer•e r•educed and the width widened ther•e would be little impact on the
individual suites that would be r•ented in the str•ip center•.
P•9r~s. Gr~egor•y, Iona Lane r•esident, asked about the zoning of the pr~oper•ty
fr~onting on County Road C.
Page -2-
P9INUTES
City Council
June l, 1988
Fahey explained that a por~tion of the pr•oper•ty on County Road C is cur•r•ently
zoned commer•cial. However~, when the r~oad is impr~oved for• the r•esidential
development, the back half of these commer~cial lots which would fr•ont on the
r~esidential r•oad would be r•ezoned to single-family residential.
Mr•s. Gr•egor•y asked when the r•esidential homes would be developed. Gr•egor•y
also pointed out that portions of the pr~oper•ty ar~e rolling and asked if
the entir~e site would be leveled.
It was pointed out that once the r~esidential str•eet is impr•oved and the
cost of the str•eet is assessed, the developer• will have to sell the lots
and housing will be developed.
Boosalis r~epor•ted that details such as gr~ading plans for~ the site have not
been developed at this point.
Fahey pointed out that the gr•ading plan for~ the pr•oper•ty would have to be
compatible with the backyar~ds of the Iona Lane pr~oper•ties.
Mr•. Gr•egor•y stated that he was in favor~ of the r~esidential pr~oposal, however•,
did not feel residential should be put in at Tim Townsley's expense. Gr•egor~y
pointed out that when Townsley bought his proper•ty, the pr•oper~ty being
discussed this evening was zoned R-1 and the Townsley pr~oper~ty was pur•chased
with the assur•ance of r•esidential development adjacent to it on the south.
Gr•egor•y suggested that an office building development adjacent to the Townsley
home woul d be pr~efer•abl e.
Blesener• pointed out that the commer•cial development on Rice Str•eet would
be used to defr•ay the costs of the residential development thr~ough the
use of TIF to make the r~esidential development feasible.
Mr•. Gr•egor•y pointed out that the Iona Lane r~esidents to the nor~th got a
100 foot buffer• fr•om the apar•tment development adjacent to them. Gr~egor•y
felt that Townsley should get another 20 feet of buffer• ar•ea.
Council discussed the City's pr~ovision for• 5% of the TIF gener•ated to be
used for• other• City pur~poses, such as par~k acquisition and it was the
feeling of the Council to for•ego this 5% in the inter•est of getting
the residential development as pr•oposed.
Fahey agr•eed that the impact fr~om a site line per~spective fr~om the Townsley
pr•oper•ty to the commer•cial development was not as great as he might think,
but felt that, if possible, the setback on the nor•th should be incr•eased
to move the development fur•ther• away fr~om the Townsley pr•oper•ty.
Townsley stated that if the commer•cial development must go in, 20 feet of
additional setback would be alot better• than the 40 foot setback being
pr•oposed. Townsely stated that the 20 feet of additional setback would
save some lar•ger• tr•ees that would pr•ovide some scr~eening to his pr•oper~ty.
B1 esener• asked how much pr•oper•ty on the nor•th woul d have to be di stur•bed
dur~ing constr•uction of the str•ip center•.
Page -3-
MINUTES
City Council
June 1, 1988
Boosalis estimated 10 to 15 feet, while his ar~chitect estimated 5 feet.
Boosalis also expr•essed concer•n with the Council shor~tening the length
of the building before all the costs ar~e known. Boosalis suggested that
he put together~ some estimates of costs, however•, noted that the costs
would be just estimates.
Scalze pointed out that at some point the City will need more than estimates.
Boosalis pointed out the constr•aints of the building season and felt that
if too much time was spent in the analysis of the project, it would be too
late to get the pr•oject going for• this year~.
LaValle asked what the or•ange stakes on the pr•oper•ty wer~e for•.
Boosalis r•eplied that the or~ange stakes show the location of the building
with a 40 foot setback.
P1r~. Gr•egor•y poi nted out probl ems wi th the commer•ci al devel opment al r•eady
existing adjacent to Iona Lane and stated that the City could not anticipate
what pr~oblems this development would cause Iona Lane. Gr•egor•y felt the 40
foot setback was too small.
Fahey noted that the Council must consider• the alter~natives, one of which
was a r•oad dir•ectly adjacent to the Townsley pr•oper•ty to access the
r~esidential pr•oper~ty to the east. Fahey felt that the pr~oposal befor•e the
Council was much better• than that alter~native.
P9r•s. Gr•egor•y agr•eed but suggested that the setback be incr•eased a little
bit mor~e.
Townsley asked why the pr•oper•ty was ever~ zoned R-1 if it was not going
to be developed as R-1.
Fahey agr•eed that the zoning should have been changed since it is not
feasible to develop pr•oper•ty on Rice Str•eet as R-l.
Townsley pointed out the additional tr•affic that this pr•oject w911 gener~ate
and the difficulty Iona Lane r•esidents have getting onto Rice Str•eet.
Fahey pointed out that Rice Str~eet is a State Highway and that tr~affic
would not be a basis for tur•ning down the Boosalis pr~oposal.
Blesener• suggested that a 50 foot setback on the north be r•equir~ed which
would include 25 feet of undistur•bed setback adjacent to the Townsley
pr•oper•ty, a small ber~m with a fence on top and some ever•gr•eens. This
would allow Boosalis 95% of the building area he is pr~oposing which could
be made up in adding some additional depth to the building.
Townsley asked if the pr•oposal is appr~oved if sometime in the futur~e
the devel oper~ coul d r•equest a change i n the r•esi denti al por•ti on of the
development.
Page -4-
MINUTES
Cit,y Council
June l, 1988
The Council pointed out that the r•esidential str•eet would be r~equir•ed to
be impr•oved and that once the str•eet is assessed, the developer• will not
be able to affor•d to sit on the pr~oper~ty without developing it.
Collova felt that based on the City Planner's calculations a 40 foot
setback would be necessar•y in or~der~ for• the pr~oject to wor•k.
Scalze pointed out the fact that the State Legislatur•e does not meet until
Januar~y and the possibility that the Legislatur•e will not r•evise the TIF
bill as suggested by the Planner• in his r•eport.
The Planner~ r•epor•ted that an agreement would be dr•awn up with the developer•
that should the TIF legislation not be r•evised, the developer• would be
r~esponsible for• making up the 55% figur~e as outlined in his r•epor•t. If
the developer• does not take this r•isk, then the City would have to take
it.
Fahey stated that he would like to see an additional 10 feet of setback
on the nor•th, if possible. Fahey stated that he would like to see the
pr~oject go, but agr•eed 10 additional feet would be better• for• Townsley.
Townsley felt that the Council was concer~ned about the developer•'s deficits
and not hi s, poi nti ng out the 1 oss i n pr•oper~ty val ue he woul d r~eal i ze.
Fahey felt the loss in proper~ty value to Townsley would be gr~eater~ if a
r~oad wer~e developed adjacent to his proper•ty r~ather• than the cur•r•ent
pr•oposal .
Townsley r•equested that the setback be incr~eased and suggested that the
developer• could make his building wider• to make up for• the r•eduction in
length.
Blesener~ asked if a 30 foot separ•ation in the two str~ip center~ buildings
was necessar•y and suggested that the building be moved 10 additional feet
to the south.
Scalze asked if Boosalis had a tenant for• the nor•ther•n por•tion of the center~
pointing out that this por•tion of the center• is much deeper~.
Boosalis r•eplied that the additional depth was being pr•oposed as a shield
to the Townsley pr•oper•ty fr•om the ser•vice r•oad in the back of the center
as well as fr•om lights.
Townsley asked if the setback is incr•eased,that 40 feet of the setback
remain undisturbed.
Fahey asked if ther~e was any pr•oblem fr•om the developer•'s standpoint with
a 50 foot setback on the nor~th and 20 feet in separ•ation between the
buildings.
The Ci ty Pl anner• suggested that the tur•ni ng r~adi us for• tr•uck mi ght be ti ght,
but felt the drive isles could be widened to accommodate this.
Page -5-
MINUTES
City Council
June 1, 1988
Boosalis agr•eed that it could be done. Boosalis stated that if a
10 foot construction area were necessary, 40 feet could be left undisburbed.
This would pr~ovide a substantial undistur•bed buffer• to the Townsley proper•ty.
Scal ze asked i f ther•e woul d be a ber•m pr•ovi ded.
Townsley felt that he would be better• off left with the tr~ees that ar~e
existing than to r•emove them for constr•uction of a ber~m. Townsley
r~equested that a fence be installed near• the building with the r~emaining
pr~oper•ty to the nor•th untouched. Townsl ey then r~equested a r~ow of
stagger~ed pine trees be planted on his pr~oper•ty.
Fahey stated that he was agr•eeable to a r•ow of pines on the other• side of
the fence, but any additional tr•ees on the Townsley pr~operty would be up
to Mr•. Townsley. Fahey did not feel the City should r~equir•e the developer~
to plant tr•ees on pr•ivate pr~oper•ty owned by Townsley.
Townsley then r•equested two rows of pines on the Boosalis pr•oper•ty nor•th
of the fence.
Boosalis pointed out that by placing the fence near• his building will give
the appear~ance of giving Townsley 40 feet of additional pr•oper~ty.
Blesener~ suggested that 25 feet of undisbur~bed ar•ea be pr~ovided adjacent
to the Townsle,y pr•oper~ty, a fence then put up, and 25 feet of landscaped
ar•ea with pine tr•ees be adjacent to the commer•cial building.
Townsley pointed out that a good por~tion of the year• ther~e ar•e no leaves
on the tr•ees and that the commer~cial development would be visible fr~om
his backyar~d. Townsley r•equested pine trees wid~hin the buffer~ ar~ea
adjacent to his pr•oper~ty for• scr•eening dur•ing the winter~ months.
Council discussed at length the buffer• ar~ea, location of the fence and
r~equir~ed landscaping. It was the concensus of the Council that the entir•e
buffer• ar~ea should be 50 feet on the nor~th, of which 25 feet of undistur~bed
ar~ea would be adjacent to the Townsl~y pr•operty within which there would be
a r~ow of stagger~ed pine trees, the planting of which will r•equir•e some
disr•uption to the existing vegetation, then a fence would be constr~ucted,
leaving 25 feet of landscaped buffer• ar•ea to the commer•cial building. Council
felt another• r~ow of stagger•ed pine tr•ees should be on this side of the fence
as well.
Blesener repor•ted that he was not convinced of the necessity for a
stagger•ed r•ow of pine tr•ees on the Townsley side of the fence feeling that
existing vegetation was adequate for~ scr~eening with some shr~uber•y added
along the fence line.
Scalze pointed out that a landscape plan will need to be pr•ovided for• the
development and suggested that Mr~. Boosalis and Mr•. Townsley get together~
and tr•y to wor•k out something mutually acceptable.
At this point in the wor~kshop, 9:34 P.M., the meeting was adjour•ned.
Res ect/f/ully b itted,
i~-
` `~G~-v ~~._4.~ ~
Ka hy G1~i er, Recor~di,rS~ Secretary
Page -6-