Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/2000 EDAC MinutesAPPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: Thursday, July 13, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: F. Chase, D. Gorowsky, H. Juni, B. Rehbein, T. Vacha, J. Schwartz (part); MEMBERS ABSENT: M. Haselman, J. Milbauer, R. Jensen OTHERS PRESENT: M. Divine, D. Carlson, B. Johnson, B. Wessel, J. Smyser, Ross Fefercorn, Mark Vargo, Jeff Knutson, Greg Hayes, J. Bergeson GENERAL/MINUTES Mr. Juni moved to approve minutes of June 1, 2000. Mr. Gorowsky seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. TOWN CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS Mr. Wessel stated that the EDAC meetings would be recorded at the request of a council member who could not attend the meetings. Ms. Divine stated she would take roll call so that members present are identified on tape. Mr. Wessel explained to the committee that staff had submitted a Livable Communities grant application for $1.5 million in a joint effort with developers Ross Fefercorn and John Duffy to receive implementation funds for the Village Development. Ms. Carolyn Krall was hired with Livable Community planning funds the city has already received to help refine the plan to current market realities for the submission. However, it is unlikely that the city will be competitive this round unless the design standards are in place and the Comprehensive Plan is approved. Mr. Wessel discussed his perception of the issue of going from design standards, through the regulatory ordinance process, to the development, versus design guidelines, through a design review committee, to development. The city has approached the issue through the ordinance route, which is less flexible. This process could result in slower development, but better ensures the city gets what it wants. Mr. Wessel suggested that staff could make some recommendations that meld standards with guidelines. Mr. Wessel stated that he considered this meeting a discussion that will carry over to the next meeting. A developer interested in the north side of the Town Center may be present at the next EDAC meeting. Ms. Divine presented a slide presentation to reinforce the original vision of the Town Center as a mixed use, human scale, pedestrian oriented community gathering place. She showed examples of conventional suburban housing and commercial development currently allowed under city zoning ordinances. She compared them with the city’s objective in the Town Center for a Traditional Neighborhood Development that would be required under the new design standards. Mr. Gorowsky stated that he believes a balance needs to take place. EDAC’s role is to increase the tax base, but not at the cost of quality. The standards accomplish quality, but if the city is too specific and ordinance oriented, will developers be able to work within them? Mr. Ross Fefercorn stated he was proposing a development plan for The Village site, and told members of his background with townhome, office and commercial development. He noted things he had learned from past development that led him to want to do mixed use, pedestrian oriented development. He stated that the Calthorpe design standards spell out a narrative to go with the Master Plan to put housing and commercial together. He noted that traditionally there is a disconnect between conventional housing, commercial and engineering standards. He stated he believed the city should look at the Calthorpe plan as the seed that will get the city its mixed use, pedestrian oriented community gathering place. He showed members examples of design guidelines from around the country that make developments more valuable in the long run. Mr. Fefercorn also talked about his Mendota Heights plan and that the plan was created first, and now the city is creating guidelines to develop the plan. Mr. Smyser stated he had no faith in guidelines since they cannot be imposed on a developer, and that the city must decide what it wants and then create ordinances to ensure that vision. He said variances can be avoided by deciding what the city wants to change in the standards before they are adopted. He noted that the entire city is now governed by design standards, and these are just new zoning ordinances that allow the type of development currently not allowed. Mr. Chase stated he doesn’t think the city should make the design standards the ordinance, but that the developer and the city should enter into a PDO and the design will be a function of the development agreement. Mr. Smyser asked if EDAC bought into the vision for the Town Center, and members agreed that they did, but the debate was how to get there. Ms. Divine stated she thought EDAC needed to make a decision regarding whether EDAC believed it was worth taking the risk to wait for higher quality, which may cost more, but leads to higher long term value. Mr. Jeff Knutson asked if it was appropriate for the city to mandate design. Mr. Fefercorn stated from his experience in Mendota Heights that the overlay zoning plan are design oriented. Mr. Smyser said the city zoning ordinances are design standards, and the city has the right and responsibility to regulate design. The question is merely to what degree can the city regulate design before people don’t get a return on their investment. Mr. Knutson said the developer/landowner is taking the risk, and also takes the hit if it doesn’t work. Mr. Bart Rehbein stated he agrees with the vision and the goals, but wants to eliminate over-regulation. A variance is difficult to get once the ordinance is in place. Mr. Smyser stated that if the standards need a lot of variances than the city has not done a good job of creating the ordinance, and likewise, if the city doesn’t get what it wants, it has also done a poor job. He noted the “devil is in the details” and if detailed requirements are taken out of the standards, people should prepare to be disappointed with the results. He noted that these standards are not requiring uniformity, and that is not the intent. Mr. Fefercorn compared the standards to a Swiss watch, noting that there is not a vocabulary for cities and developers to use to combine retail and housing, and design standards establish that vocabulary. For example, while it may seem too detailed to regulate the type and color of trash cans, it is a big deal to people who live in housing behind the retail. Mr. Greg Hayes stated that when urban villages are created it is usually through the PUD process and the standards are melded to the marketplace. Ms. Schwartz questioned whether there is a difference in land value to land with design standards on it, versus land without. Will the design standards negatively impact the value, or increase it? Mr. Fefercorn stated it depends more on the economic realities of location and market. For example, to make the Village project work he believes it is necessary to infuse money through the Livable Communities grant to meet the asking price of the landowners and make it a viable project, along with city participation in such things as streetlights and public spaces. However, he believes he will have the ability to market the townhomes at a higher price, and people can make money on their resale, because of the uniqueness of the project and the higher quality environment. Mr. Fefercorn noted that while refinements may be made to the Calthorpe plan and the design standards, without that plan he wouldn’t be looking at this project. It was the opportunity to do this type of project that brought him to Lino Lakes. Mr. Wessel stated it was necessary to maintain momentum to get the design standards passed and that staff would come back with recommendations at the next EDAC meeting. Mr. Carlson stated she wanted to clarify that it was a consensus of the council that EDAC should be tape recorded. Members agreed that the meeting on August 3 go until 9 a.m. to allow time for the other developer to present and have continuing discussion. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m.