10/04/2001 EDAC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

2 Ms. Schwartz asked if the lesson learned is that if a developer comes in asking for something because they say they need it, but if the city gives them less, do they still do the project? Mr. Grochala responded that in reality the subsidy was cut in half over the last couple months. Mr. Gorowsky said it might not be possible to learn a lesson from one project, because there are so many different factors. Mr. Milbauer stated he had information that Target has said it never had a more difficult time putting a project in a city. Going forward, developers are going to be cautious about developing in Lino Lakes, and that it does nothing to improve the image of the city. Mr. Gorowsky said that was more consistent with the preexisting image. While this project succeeded, it may not improve development for the future. Ms. Carlson talked about the Target in Minneapolis, where the city kept committing more money to the project. The city opened two doors, commercial development asking for abatement, and one for companies asking for waiver of fees. Mr. Milbauer noted that TIF and abatement are incentives for development to come in, and the TIF door had been open before. Ms. Carlson responded that the city supported an abatement policy that had not been in place. She believes there was some financial need because of the cost of the road, but there was never a firm number established because financial information from the developers never was submitted. Mr. Vacha said the project caused deviations from policy, such as the road, so there were problems that made it a more difficult project. Ms. Hansmann said she hoped that the city had policies in the right order and dealt with issues up front, before a development proposal came in. Mr. Milbauer said the development on Lexington spurred Target to move faster than it would have, and any project will spur issues that have to be dealt with. Ms. Schwartz noted it was important to discuss lessons learned and remember the common threads in future development. Ms. Divine noted that the development agreement was on the next council agenda, along with two purchase agreements. Mr. Grochala explained that acquisition of right-of-way from JADT involved the city buying everything from the south right-of-way, which includes a remnant piece that will result from the road construction. Another purchase agreement will be on the agenda so that the city, once it owns the piece, can sell it to Ryan Companies for the price the city pays for it. The cost to the city for purchasing the property for the road will be assessed back to the developers, JADT and Ryan. He added that staff has been working with McDonald’s, which received site plan approval in 2000. Because of some changes due to the new Market Place development, modifications were made to the McDonald’s site plan, and it will go back through P&Z and council for review and approval. McDonald’s will have an option for a temporary access in case Apollo Drive is not completed by the time it wants to open, which is four months from whenever they break ground. Ms. Divine showed the committee pictures of the retro McDonald’s that will be built in Lino Lakes.