Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/2002 EDAC Minutes 1 APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: Thursday, May 2, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Juni, T. Vacha, F. Chase (part), J. Schwartz, R. Jensen, B. Hicks, K. Hansmann MEMBERS ABSENT: D. Gorowsky, J. Milbauer OTHERS PRESENT: M. Divine GENERAL/MINUTES Minutes of April 4, 2002 were approved. UPDATES Redevelopment Districts: Ms. Divine stated that she will be recommending Schoell & Madson to perform the site and building assessment for establishing redevelopment districts in the Town Center. After the council approves it, staff will be holding a neighborhood meeting to explain the purpose of the analysis to the property owners. Spirit Hills Commercial: Ms. Divine showed the committee the site plan submitted by Rehbein Companies for approximately 30,000 sf on the corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road. She stated that there are site design issues regarding a bank drive through that may delay the project for a month. Ms. Schwartz asked about the PDO rezone potential for getting greater design control. Ms. Divine said staff has worked with the developer to get some improvements on the buildings and there will be a greater amount of green space due to the use of turf that can be parked on. Mr. Juni stated that the additional traffic onto Birch should be taken into consideration when designing Hodgson Road. Hillyard Company: Ms. Divine stated this project was building on two acres in the Apollo Business Park. They are going to Planning & Zoning this month. TIF District Status: Ms. Divine shared an update on the current TIF Districts in the city and the timeline for each district coming onto the tax rolls. The council had requested this update as part of the consideration of creating new redevelopment districts. Ms. Divine noted this helps to demonstrate how the economic development effort over the past years will pay off. 2 Design Review Task Force: Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Hicks updated the committee on the progress made by the task force in revising the city’s subdivision and zoning ordinances. The task force looked at a draft ordinance for growth management and premature subdivisions. The ordinance has criteria a subdivision application must meet, such as having utilities available, and roads must meet a certain level of service. Ms. Schwartz stated the conservation subdivision ordinance is the most controversial issue to date. The group is looking at density bonuses, open space preservation, lot sizes, etc. There are different opinions on how to accomplish the goals. The task force looked at a typical subdivision where lots maximize the area, but destroy the environmental amenities. The alternative would be to make smaller lots and preserve the valuable open space for public use. But the lot sizes go from 10,800 square feet to 8,000 square feet, and only 65 feet in width, which creates garage houses. Small lots would be mixed in with larger lots, so the neighborhoods won’t have homogeneous value. This mixing could impact the value of the upper end homes, according to Ms. Schwartz. The standard of 10,800 square feet may be too small in a suburban application, and the task force is looking at creating a larger standard, with the density bonus being down to 10,800 square feet. The sentiment on the task force was that people come to the suburbs to have larger lots. Mr. Hicks stated most of the ordinances they looked at were difficult to read, and what was approved was more readable and more positive. The Environmental Board’s handbook has a goal of saving 50% of all land, in reality the city can save about 10%. Ms. Divine noted that finding some ways to allow opportunities for smaller lots can be an incentive for providing affordable housing. Mr. Chase stated that larger lots will be more expensive and could help to slow growth. Ms. Divine stated 10,800 square feet is now the R-1 zoning, R1-X is 12,825 square feet. Ms. Schwartz said a mixed value neighborhood is a major concern, because it can reduce marketability. Ms. Divine said mixing of values is considered one way to develop, and has proven successful around the country. Ms. Schwartz cited an example of a metro subdivision where it was unsuccessful and devalued the upper end homes. Hodgson Road/Lake Drive property: Ms. Divine explained that the city owned a 3.5- acre parcel that is zoned for General Business and has a lake view. It has certain limitations, including shoreland setbacks and utility easements through the property. She asked EDAC to consider whether there are types of uses allowed in GB that would not be appropriate for this site, or whether some uses, such as multi-family, assisted living, etc., should be considered. Since the city owns it, additional controls on how it gets developed are possible. EDAC could consider making recommendations about the best use of this property. Ms. Schwartz thought it was a good office site or upper bracket apartment. Mr. Vacha suggested marketing the property first, and see what comes in. Ms. Hansmann stated the poor access would reduce its desirability for a gas station, especially if one goes on Birch Street/Hodgson Road. It has no neighborhood there. 3 EDAC members will consider making recommendations at its next meeting. Ms. Divine will research whether the utilities on site are considered an improvement and could have redevelopment potential. Tax Reform: Ms. Divine stated a presentation is available, but a couple members are missing who are interested in it. It will be slated for the next meeting toward the end. Site Inventory: One EDAC goal has been to do an inventory of all commercial and industrial properties, and the opportunities, constraints and priorities of EDAC for future economic development growth. Ms. Divine questioned whether the existing format was useful. Ms. Schwartz suggested digital photos may be more useful. Mr. Jensen said the city has one large gem of open property accessible to both freeways. Encroachment from housing can destroy future opportunities, and the city should be protecting it. Mr. Juni asked if this format meets a need. Ms. Divine stated it doesn’t meet a real need for her in marketing property, but, does it meet a need for the committee in doing its long range planning? Identifying the “gems” and making recommendations to the council should be done continually. Ms. Schwartz suggested a list to identify properties is a minimum needed, plus aerials, Mr. Jensen stated the committee should be pushing long range planning of the east side, and connecting 35E and 35W at 80th. EDAC can make recommendations regarding the potential for that area. Mr. Juni stated part of EDAC’s role is what is happening in 10-15 years. Ms. Schwartz said the east side of the city gets ignored. It has a lot of opportunity, with pristine vacant land. Too much time and money is spent on redevelopment in the Town Center. Mr. Juni asked what a site inventory really means, what is EDAC’s vision. Ms. Divine reminded the committee they have a 5-year plan and a 1-year action plan that does outline areas for development. Mr. Jensen said it would be helpful to go see the east side as a group. It was decided to do it at the next meeting unless something more urgent came up. Members will meet at Embers. Mr. Hicks said it would be helpful to have overlays with zoning, the mix, and what the long-range plan is. Meeting adjourned. 4