Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/2001 EDAC Minutes 1 APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: Thursday, December 6, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Juni, R. Jensen, T. Vacha, J. Schwartz, F. Chase, B. Hicks, MEMBERS ABSENT: D. Gorowsky, J. Milbauer, K. Hansmann OTHERS PRESENT: D. Carlson, M. Divine, M. Grochala GENERAL/MINUTES Minutes of October 4, 2001 were approved. APPOINTMENTS Ms. Divine notified the committee that three members, Mr. Juni, Mr. Gorowsky and Mr. Chase were up for reappointment. All three had reapplied. One other resident had made application. Ms. Carlson informed the committee that the Council may be interviewing all candidates, not just the new applicants, and they were hoping to make the appointments by the end of the year. VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT Ms. Divine stated the city did not receive a Livable Communities grant this year. She stated that staff had had some preliminary discussions with a developer also interested in the Village development. MORATORIUM ON HOUSING Mr. Grochala notified the board that staff was recommending a 12-month moratorium on housing to allow time to revise the city’s subdivision and zoning ordinances to implement the Comprehensive Plan. This would include growth management requirements that lay out the phasing plans for new housing subdivisions to implement the 147 homes per year goal. Without a moratorium new development applications would keep coming. Without the new ordinances, developers are caught in a grey area, where the city is talking about new ordinances while the existing ones are still in place. 2 The city has a lot inventory of 400 homes that have preliminary or final plat approval, which is more than two year’s growth. The negative with the moratorium is perception, and EDAC can play a role by supporting the process when talking with people outside of Lino Lakes, and can explain that the moratorium will result in a better process to implement the comp plan. Developers will have clearer rules, and the application process will be streamlined. Developers will know that if they follow the rules, they will get approval. Mr. Grochala said the city is still working on a process for completing the ordinances changes. His recommendation is a task force comprised of two people from P &Z, the Environmental Board and EDAC, with the chairs of each board being one of the members. He is recommending the mayor chair the task force. Each board will have input and ownership of the ordinance revisions. The task force would need to be empowered by the council to deal with the ordinances and bring a final recommendation to the council. Zoning and subdivision ordinances are lengthy and technical. Key issues are growth management, conservation subdivision as the main method of doing housing development, landscaping and tree preservation, site plan review requirements and commercial/industrial performance standards. Staff will develop drafts of language for discussion and then incorporate input from the task force. All meetings will be public, and there will be opportunities for public comment, but the recommendation is that public input not be taken at every meeting. It is important to move forward and not get bogged down. The council has not yet approved this process, so it may be revised. Government Training Services will do a workshop beforehand to discuss what can and cannot be done with zoning and subdivision ordinances. All boards will be invited, but task force members would be required to attend. The subdivision ordinance will likely be completely new. There will be new components to the zoning ordinance. The conservation subdivision requirements will likely be tied to the PDO process, by breaking PDOs up into commercial, mixed use and residential, with residential containing the conservation subdivision requirements. Mr. Hicks questioned the reason for the moratorium instead of just going ahead and making the changes. Mr. Grochala said it gives staff time to concentrate on getting it done. It is also questionable that the city can deny subdivisions based solely on the 147 units/year in the comp plan. If developers are allowed to make applications, then are denied a plat when it gets to the Council because it is not consistent with the comp plan, a lot of staff and developer time has been wasted. Mr. Chase asked about stopping the expansion of MUSA for a year rather than a moratorium. It wouldn’t have the same connotation. Mr. Grochala said the city somewhat has that ability now. But the grey areas come in with the properties inside the MUSA that are properly zoned. Mr. Chase said lot inventory is different than the number of houses actually being built. Mr. Grochala said implementation of 147 homes/year is the 3 difficulty. Once the city approves plats without a phasing plan in place, developers have the legal right to build. Mr. Grochala said the public hearing on the moratorium is scheduled for the December Planning & Zoning meeting, and would be in effect in late February. The intent is to keep the moratorium as short as possible, but it will take commitment from everyone. State law allows an extension of a moratorium, but that is not an option the city should consider. Mr. Grochala added that there is not a good impression about the development process in Lino Lakes. But this opportunity can be used with minimal impact. Marketplace is underway, and momentum is already out there for commercial development. In the end, Lino Lakes should be more developer friendly. Mr. Juni asked if any housing developers are going to be getting caught in this. Mr. Grochala said Mr. Rockey Goertz was an example. He was interested in developing a site on Birch Street/Hodgson Road. He would get caught in the middle of old versus new zoning. Developers will be reluctant to purchase property not knowing what the new ordinances will be. Mr. Chase said phasing could have big financial impacts if a developer has to buy a property but can’t develop it all at once. It makes the land less valuable. Ms. Schwartz questioned the legality of the cap of 147 homes. Mr. Grochala said likely the city may get challenged eventually, but cities have broad discretion and it likely could be supportable. Mr. Jensen said there is a lot of case law, and the city shouldn’t have a problem defending its right to do it. Mr. Juni said EDAC needs a discussion about how a moratorium affects economic development. Mr. Chase said every time a project comes in, the city goes through a debate about growth, and that negatively impacts development. Mr. Hicks said it feels like a moratorium would create more of the problems that the city is trying to avoid. If the city doesn’t accomplish its goals in a year, it will be in a worse place. Mr. Chase said the issue is sending developers away for a year, or allowing them to go through a process that takes much longer than it should and still have a risk of not getting approved. Mr. Grochala said under existing ordinances, a development that comes in and meets those ordinances still has a good chance of not being approved. The process now is not working. Ms. Schwartz said a moratorium is prudent, and many cities have a moratorium to implement their comp plans. Mr. Chase said the council must be committed to allowing the process to work. The task force approach was used for the comp plan, and it still took years to get it approved. Mr. Grochala said the mandate is that the task force be empowered by the council. Ms. Divine said EDAC’s role in this is to deal with perception, and speak to the outside public about how this will improve the ability for commercial development in the future. The real impact from an economic development point of view is not the moratorium, but the cap on housing. 4 Mr. Chase said he would be opposed unless there is a strong commitment from the council and outside consulting help. He believes much of this could have been accomplished while putting together the comp plan. Mr. Grochala said he feels confident the ordinance review can go ahead without final comp plan approval by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Grochala stated a press release and a Q&A sheet was completed for the press. Ms. Schwartz stated most cities pass a moratorium after completion of a comp plan. Mr. Chase said there will be more to review in January prior to Council adoption and EDAC can act on it then. TAX SUBSIDY PRIMER Due to the time limitations, a primer on tax reform and tax abatement was delayed for January. Members will be discussing strategic planning and the moratorium in January and any new members will be present. Mr. Chase mentioned that EDAC needed to discuss focusing on the larger picture, rather than specific projects. Where the group is going, and what’s needed from this committee should be discussed. Ms. Divine stated that an update of EDAC’s one-year action plan will be sent out to EDAC, and the committee can discuss priorities for the next year. EDAC can also look at the C/I inventory, and the opportunities and constraints for different C/I areas of the city. Mr. Juni suggested another tour of C/I properties for newer members if they felt it would benefit them. Ms. Carlson questioned adding another member to EDAC because there were four good applicants. Ms. Divine recommended keeping the board to nine members. Ms. Schwartz mentioned most cities had 5-6 members. Meeting adjourned 8:30 a.m.