Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2011 EDAC Minutes 1 Approved CITY OF LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: October 6, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Keller, L. Salzman, L. Thor, J. Stranik, L. Masonik MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Schwartz, B. Combs, D. Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: M. Divine, Paul Bengtson (part) APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 14, 2011 were approved with one correction. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING OUTDOOR STORAGE IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Planner Paul Bengtson explained to members that an issue has arisen regarding outdoor storage in Light Industrial. The issue was instigated by a company moving into a building in the Apollo Business Park and storing trusses outdoors. In Light and General Industrial, a business can apply for a Conditional Use Permit to have outdoor storage, but not if the property is next to the freeway or next to residential or rural. Those conditions are for protection of residents and protection of aesthetics of the city. The city has an interim use process for somebody doing a temporary principal use of outdoor storage. Mr. Stranik said interim to him implied temporary in nature. Mr. Bengtson said the interim use process requires that an end date be established. The applicant has asked for the interim use permit to be amended to include accessory use of outdoor storage. This would open up the opportunity for all the Light Industrial properties to come in and get this interim use permit and be allowed outdoor storage. Staff does not support the idea of amending the ordinance. The standards were put in place to produce value and improve the city’s C/I tax base. Staff is recommending against the ordinance revision, believing that allowing outdoor storage next to residential and the freeways is a step backward. Staff recommended five reasons why this request should not be granted. 1) The city already allows outdoor storage in certain areas; 2) screening can help alleviate the issue, but a fence itself is very visible and rarely aesthetically pleasing, and doesn’t necessarily screen everything. 3) Outdoor storage creates noise impacts that fencing can’t alleviate. 4) Temporary use is not necessarily temporary. When the business comes in and asks for an extension, it’s more difficult to not renew what is now an existing business. They will have invested in paving, fencing etc. If they sell the building, a new user is going to expect the same right, and outdoor storage becomes the norm. 5) The economic condition should not affect how the city should be built for the future. In 2003, architectural 2 standards were raised for industrial buildings to build tax base, not lower it. Reducing standards can lead to long term negative impacts in valuations. Ms. Keller said the issue can be addressed by building fences just like they have on the freeway. Ms. Divine noted that MnDot builds those freeway sound walls and they are very expensive and would be cost prohibitive for any business. Mr. Salzman asked why we have a prison under the Lino Lakes water tower. Mr. Bengtson noted the City had nothing to say about that, the state owned the land. He said the intent is to make the area better, rather than putting up more prison style walls. Mr. Salzman said you can only see the trusses for a couple of seconds. Ms. Divine reminded members that this change doesn’t just impact this one business, it opens up outdoor storage to all the businesses there. The city always considered the business park on 35W as a very visible gateway to the city. Mr. Salzman said the truss company is a wheel of commerce, and the more we have, the more it will attract business. Empty buildings attract other empty buildings. In this economy, the city should not shoo away 15 employees because it’s a little bit of a nuisance. Mr. Masonik agreed. Mr. Stranik said the issue is whether the city’s policy of tougher standards, including the restrictions on outdoor storage, has retarded economic development. Do aesthetic standards hamper economic viability? What would the impact be to allow outdoor storage? Ms. Keller asked why if it is temporary for one company, does it open it up for everybody else? Mr. Bengtson said other companies can then make the same requests for interim use permits. Ms. Keller asked what the city can do to move this business to where it would be allowed. Mr. Salzman said the city should put up the funds to move them if the city wants them here. Mr. Bengtson reminded members this was not an existing business. It’s a new, move-in business and they did not ask the city if they could do outside storage. Now they are asking the city to lower its standards to allow it. Ms. Divine said the existing businesses made a big financial investment, wanting freeway visibility and a nice business park. Mr. Thor said the question is about being fair. The city’s standards are in place and anybody who comes to Lino Lakes needs to abide by the standards. If a business built a building with those expectations, and the city later adjusted the ordinances to lower the standards, that’s not fair to those businesses that followed the rules. He noted that many of the businesses aren’t just manufacturing, they have offices, receive clients, etc. Mr. Masonik said it’s not lowering standards, it’s adjusting them to meet current needs. Mr. Salzman said staff is too wedded to the Comprehensive Plan, and needs more flexibility in these times. Mr. Masonik suggested the city should not make them pay taxes. Ms. Divine stated the city doesn’t have any statutory authority to decide this one company doesn’t have to pay its taxes, and Mr. Stranik wondered why the city would award a company that didn’t do its due diligence by using tax dollars to help them move, or not making them pay taxes. Mr. Thor said the city should not focus on what is going on now, but how it impacts the future. This ordinance change could create ripples in the future. Mr. Masonik disagreed that it will necessarily be a problem. Mr. Stranik suggested that EDAC look at all the rules and standards and see if ordinances are outmoded, and are there things that are retarding growth and expansion. Ms. Divine said staff has been spending considerable time going through ordinances to see if they are compatible to with Comprehensive Plan. 3 Mr. Salzman moved to advise the council that they accept the proposed amendment. Mr. Masonik seconded the motion. Ms. Keller, Mr. Salzman and Masonik voting Aye. Mr. Stranik and Thor voting Nay. Motion passed 3-2. EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER Ms. Divine informed EDAC that the school district would be moving out of the ECFE building at the end of the school year. The city has been leasing it to the district since 1998. The city needs to lease that building. The city has attempted to work with the district to lower the rent, but the district wants to move the program to an existing school. Mr. Thor stated it would likely be a rent between $9-11 NNN. Mr. Salzman suggested it could be a suite of offices or an incubator. As long as you are averaging $8 NNN, for a 5-year lease you can stair-step the rent, starting lower and raising each year. Mr. Stranik said some leases are tied to the CPI. The original length of the lease should be as long as or longer than any option. Meeting adjourned.