Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/2001 EDAC Minutes 1 APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: Thursday, August 2, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Juni, J. Schwartz, J. Milbauer, F. Chase, K. Hansmann, D. Gorowsky, R. Jensen, B. Hicks, MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Vacha OTHERS PRESENT: D. Carlson, M. Divine, B. Wessel, R. Rafferty, Terry O’Connell (part), Marty Asleson (part) GENERAL/MINUTES The July 12, 2001 minutes were approved. COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD COMMITTEE Ms. Divine explained that the city annually presents two awards for outstanding service to the community. A committee, comprised of a representative from each board, makes the selection. She requested an EDAC volunteer to serve on the committee. Mr. Juni volunteered to serve. MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT Mr. Wessel said July 2002 is still the scheduled Target opening, and they would like to break ground August 28. Key issues are the second access, which has been approved by the county, but with conditions that 77th become a right in, right out only. Schwann’s will likely be accessed from off the new access, rather than from Lake Drive. The city is making progress in negotiating a subsidy. August 27 is final approvals for preliminary plat, PDO, and subsidy. The pads identified are a bank, convenience store, fast food, and retail opportunities that Ryan will own and lease for smaller uses. RYAN/TARGET/KOHLS ABATEMENT Mr. Wessel stated that Ryan Companies has taken its piece of the tax abatement subsidy request off the table, and the subsidy will go to Target and Kohl’s, and staff continues to negotiate it. The remnant parcel that the city will eventually own may become a part of the subsidy. Mr. Wessel said he has been negotiating with Mr. Tim Baylor to purchase that piece at $4.25/SF and turn it around and sell it to Ryan Companies. Mr. Baylor is 2 negotiating to sell the remainder of his land to McDonald’s. McDonald’s is still planning to build on the same site. Mr. Wessel explained that the city had the capacity to respond to the tax abatement request until the legislature changed the tax laws. Generally, city policy is in the range of a 5-year term for a subsidy. With the new tax laws, the city’s capacity is severely limited and it is 11-12 years to abate that piece. This subsidy can be viewed as an incentive, since the market is premature. Originally, Ryan intended to construct the public improvements. Most likely, with the additional Lake Drive improvements, it will be a city project and the benefiting landowners will be assessed. Ms. Carlson said the council met to discuss the subsidy and has scheduled another meeting. Mr. Hicks asked what the reason was for doing the Target project prematurely. Mr. Wessel said the market is 3-5 years out and the council needs to decide if it is worth the investment for providing services, getting quality anchors, etc. Mr. Jensen said this is a gift to the city. Mr. Chase said it could take years to get another development of this quality. Ms. Carlson said the council supports the project but it comes with a price tag and the city council has to pick the right number, since they have to explain why they chose what they did. VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT Ms. Divine said the Livable Communities Committee is now meeting to decide which applicants will be invited to submit a Phase 2 application. At this point last year, Lino Lakes was ranked highest overall, this year it is ranked very low, largely due to the lack of an approved Comp Plan. Last year’s grant was contingent on several issues being resolved. The city is invited to give an implementation update, and the Comp Plan is expected to be sent to the Metropolitan Council in mid-August. A market study has been initiated with the housing developer. The market study has to look at two different projects, a senior housing project next to a sandblasting plant or within a Traditional Neighborhood Development The city is asking for the same thing as last year to gain control of the remaining land. Some very significant projects are asking for funding, and the odds are long for Lino Lakes. Mr. Wessel said the increased competition is from the urban center. Once the committee commits to a project they tend to support the project to get it done. The city’s opportunity was last year. Without the full amount the city has been unable to demonstrate progress and the Village design is jeopardized. Ms. Divine said there was still support for what the city is doing regarding diversity of housing etc. One of the developers of the Village project, Mr. Fefercorn, is now a member of the committee. Ms. Divine noted that much of the support goes to Minneapolis/St. Paul projects, because the principles often lend themselves better to higher density areas. Ms. Schwartz asked if that indicated that this might not work in a suburb. Ms. Divine said there is enough precedent nationally that it works in a suburban environment. By its nature it is not going to be the same kind of project as an inner city 3 project. Mr. Wessel said the committee has concerns about community support, after the clarifying letter sent to the committee by the city council last year, the lack of progress on a Comp Plan and lack of design standards. Ms. Carlson said the core issue is the city doesn’t own the land. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ISSUES Brian Wessel introduced Terry O’Connell, an Environmental Board member. She is attending at the request of EDAC for more information regarding the board’s recommendation for a moratorium on development. Ms. O’Connell pointed out that ecology, economy and culture must work together so growth can be well planned. The Environmental Board wants a moratorium on residential growth after the Met Council approves the Comp Plan to give the city time to look at ordinances so the city has a clear diagram for developers. Currently, when developers come in, there are no teeth in the tree ordinance to enforce certain things. Mr. Chase said the Environmental Board could have generated an ordinance at any time, it doesn’t need the Comp Plan to be completed. Ms. O’Connell said the quantity of requests for development take up all the board’s time. Mr. Asleson said the tree ordinance can move ahead with changes in the tree replacement portion of the document. The Environmental Board wanted to incorporate a conservation development ordinance into the Comp Plan and the board doesn’t know how to place it within the Plan. Mr. Milbauer said a moratorium has negative connotations, and environmental protection can move along with development at the same pace. Ms. O’Connell said one issue is getting developers to plant the right trees that are native to the area. Mr. Asleson said the cultural resources that exist that are being taken out. If Highland Meadows could have been done with conservation development rather than standard zoning, it could have been a much better development. Ms. O’Connell said she has never heard negative press about Lino Lakes. Mr. Wessel said it depends on one’s role within the city. The development community sees Lino Lakes as anti-development, which is the economic development perspective. Mr. Asleson said he sees differences of opinion on the need for conservation development, or even what it means. The city has been selected to do an environmental education program to help everybody understand what it means. We need people to agree on the definitions. Mr. Gorowsky said from EDAC’s perspective, a moratorium is like stopping an engine, and once stopped, it is so difficult to get it up to speed again. Mr. Asleson said all boards need to keep in mind the model of cultural, economic and environmental sustainability. Mr. Rafferty said that staff dropped the ball on tree preservation and on the design standards. Ms. Schwartz said she supports a moratorium because of her concern over the housing limits. Hugo has had a moratorium without negative affects, but is supporting higher quality development rather than marginal projects. If the city has a Comp Plan it should 4 be supported with ordinances to make the Comp Plan work. Ms. Carlson said without the ordinances, the council may have to give MUSA to the first developers at the gate rather than the best developments. Mr. Chase said the real issue is that the resources of the city should be used on the priority needs to get these ordinances in place. Ms. Hansmann said boards, staff and council need to understand current ordinances so that when people come to the city they know what they say. The city hasn’t been looking at them closely, they should be the daily handbook. Mr. Milbauer said the more rigid you make something, the less flexibility you have. Mr. Asleson said a conservation ordinance allows a developer to be more flexible. This city has unique resources and they can be forever ruined. Mr. Chase said the city is an independent entity, and the control of the Met Council is by not giving us something if we don’t meet their requirements, such as the grant, or allocation of MUSA. Members thanked Ms. O’Connell and Mr. Asleson for coming. Mr. Juni said there is a need for boards to communicate. Mr. Hicks said there needs to be a balance, and it was good to hear from a board member. Mr. Milbauer moved to adjourn. Mr. Juni seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned.