Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/2004 EDAC MinutesAPPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: Thursday, April 1, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: K. Hansmann, H. Juni, T. Vacha, J. Schwartz, H. Karth, S. Rymer, J. Helgemoe, F. Chase MEMBERS ABSENT: D. Gorowsky OTHERS PRESENT: M. Divine, M. Grochala, G. Heitke GENERAL/MINUTES Minutes of March 4, 2004 were approved. EDAC FIVE YEAR PLAN REVIEW Mr. Juni asked why there was a terminology change from tax revenue to tax capacity. Ms. Divine stated the tax capacity is the amount of taxes generated from the county tax rolls. (Explanation: the tax capacity is the value x the tax rate, while the tax revenue is the tax capacity x the tax capacity rate. Since the tax capacity rate varies from year to year and school district to school district, it is simpler to use the basic tax capacity.) Ms. Divine said she updated the inventory to give members a review of new development. Mr. Juni asked if it was helpful to list all the uses in multi-tenant buildings. He questioned whom the five-year plan is for. Ms. Divine said after a major update the plan has been brought to the council. It is a way to reinforce long range goals. EDAC took the plan, which included some policy recommendations, to the council a few years ago. The one-year plan is a more changeable document. Mr. Chase moved to approve the updated five-year plan. Mr. Rymer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Rymer asked if the city should be trying to work closely with the state legislature on economic development issues. Mr. Juni stated the committee has never been proactive that way. Mr. Chase said the city has been proactive in going after opportunities. Mr. Juni stated if the city becomes aware of issues that need attention, this committee should be notified and can participate in lobbying efforts. Mr. Karth stated an effort should made to clean up the entrances to the city, it hasn’t been accomplished. Enforcement of problem areas is needed. Mr. Chase stated EDAC has promoted redevelopment when the opportunity arises. Ms. Divine stated the Comprehensive Plan promotes relocating industrial uses on Lake Drive to the business parks. Mr. Grochala stated there are a lot of redevelopment opportunities. But the city must be committed to using the tools available, such as TIF. EDAC’s role can be identifying the sites recommending a strategy for going about it, and 1 getting the council to buy into it. To date, the city has focused on new development, and redevelopment has been a low priority. It’s easier to do with a development plan, the city doesn’t want to spend dollars it can’t recover. But increment from new development can pay for clearing properties. Mr. Juni stated EDAC needs to decide if this should be more specifically addressed in the five-year plan. Mr. Chase stated the five-year plan needs to be redone in a year, so there is no need to focus on changes now. Mr. Grochala stated the one-year action plan could beef up this issue by prioritizing locations, then identify the opportunities and pick a project to go after. Ms. Hansmann suggested Schwann’s as a major redevelopment priority. Ms. Divine stated the city has talked to Schwann’s. Mr. Chase stated a goal of EDAC was to look at all the C/I properties and prioritize. ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN REVIEW Ms. Divine stated she would make changes in dates and names for the complete plan. Apollo Business Park – Ms. Divine stated Hillyard was built in 2003. The TIF district is aging, there is little capacity left. Two properties remain unbuilt. In past years EDAC has discussed upgrading the looks of the park. The action plan would be to develop the remaining properties. Mr. Chase said if the city chooses to implement lighting and landscaping, it may be assessable. Ms. Divine said enforcement issues, signage plans, and outside storage of trash containers, etc. are continuing issues. Mr. Chase stated that before dropping this from the action plan, EDAC should initiate a meeting with the business owners and discuss developing an improvement plan. Mr. Juni questioned if this EDAC’s action, or a recommendation for the city? Mr. Grochala stated the council would be presented with actions and goals, and they will accept them or not and direct staff or boards to follow through. Clearwater Creek Development Center – Mr. Karth noted the county will be deciding the route of County Road 14. Ms. Schwartz stated Industrial Equities is holding the property. Ms. Divine says that may pay off as the interchange develops. Strategy 1 can remain the same, but the action plan does not address the broader 35E corridor, and development opportunities will make this area a high priority. Ms. Schwartz said 35E corridor should be the number one goal. EDAC should develop a separate section for this. The existing Cty. Rd. 14 will be reconstructed in 2006. Ms. Divine will add in the 35E corridor into the 2004 action plan. EDAC will want to take a serious look at how improvements on 35E can be funded. Town Center Development – Strategies need updating. Ms. Divine stated the next approval will be the public commitment. The number one strategy is to make it economically workable. Mr. Grochala stated the city is trying to build the YMCA costs, Lake Drive improvements and interchange reconstruction. We think we can make it viable by taxes generated from the new development, but that will be the sticking point of this whole project. Mr. Juni asked if they are developing the city’s one-year plan or the committee’s one-year plan. The council did not approve the recommendations made by EDAC in the last plan, but they agreed to accept the plan. Mr. Juni said the strategy EDAC is saying that this is priority number one, and is recommending the city to move it 2 along and get the project done. Mr. Grochala stated staff needs to know if the council wants to do this project. EDAC needs to push the issue and if there is something the council is not comfortable with, they need to explain why. Ms. Hansmann stated the council needs to see what has been accomplished, and see the economic feasibility of this, and should be listed as a strategy. Mr. Juni turned the meeting over to Ms. Schwartz. Marketplace Development – the land is owned by developers, and is being marketed for development. It has been slow to develop. Ms. Hansmann wants to add a strategy to require the developers control the undeveloped portion of the site so that it looks better. Mr. Grochala said staff has been working with Ryan Companies to do a revised landscaping plan. No changes were suggested for the action plan. Lake Drive Development – Mr. Karth stated some of the places should be bought out by the city as they become available. Members suggested reviewing the identified sites so that when opportunities arise, the city could be more proactive Mr. Karth suggested that EDAC look at Lake Drive design. Mr. Grochala said a work session setting could be set up to look at aerial photos with the proposed land use overlay. Lake Drive will eventually be 4-lane divided, with fewer driveways. No changes to the action plan were suggested. Ms. Schwartz suggested breaking into groups to look at various project areas, and thought it should be an agenda item for the next meeting. At that meeting members can look at the final action plan and see how it wants to divide up into subcommittees. Birch Street/Hodgson Road – Much of the work has been accomplished. The Kaiser property just got sold back to Anoka County. Much of the parcel will be used for ROW and ponding. A sliver will be left for potential Apitz Garage expansion. The intersection will be improved with signalization, and Ware Road will be aligned. Hodgson Road/County Road J – Mr. Grochala said the county will not be doing the Hodgson Road reconstruction project. The county will redo the bridge. The members agreed to take out this project as a one-year action. Local Business Retention – Schwann’s is considered one opportunity for relocating to the business park. The city has opened the door for discussion with them. EJM is looking for a site also. Mr. Chase said it’s important to have a place in the city for these types of businesses to go that allows for truck parking etc. Members agreed to change Strategy #2 from “town center” to “the city.” The members agreed to have these changes made and review at the next meeting. The east side will be incorporated into an action plan. REHBEIN INDUSTRIAL SITE ON 35E Mr. Grochala stated that staff had met with HOM Furniture regarding a 1.1 million sq. ft. distribution/showroom facility at full buildout, on about 67 acres zoned for LI southwest 3 of 35E/Cty. Rd. 14. This is a massive project that has numerous issues that would have to be addressed, including a mandatory EIS and relocation of Clearwater Creek. The parking area crosses city boundaries into Centerville. The new road would provide access to Centerville’s industrial area. There could be a joint review process or the city can talk about detachment. Mr. Grochala stated this location was good for this type of facility and takes care of 21st Ave. road problems. Moving the creek is an opportunity to enhance it. With TIF, this could be an opportunity to provide funding for the interchange. Ms. Schwartz said this could be a white elephant in the future. Mr. Grochala said HOM said the building could be built to be subdivided. A preliminary estimate of value could be $30 million at full buildout. Mr. Chase stated he thought it was a perfect use for the site. Mr. Vacha agreed this would be the best use for generating tax revenue. Mr. Vacha moved to recommend this project move forward to the next level. Mr. Chase seconded the motion. Motion passed with Mr. Karth abstaining. MASTER PLAN FOR EAST SIDE Mr. Grochala stated the 360-acre site is guided for industrial and medium and high density residential. Benchmark Community Builder Collaborative has proposed master planning the site, based on community involvement. They don’t have a plan. They want to bring in the stakeholders and interested parties to get input. Ultimately it may end up with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. But if the community agrees it is a good project, that shouldn’t be an issue. A joint meeting with the developer, council and boards is a next step. They do the market research, and look at expendable income and where it is currently being spent. Master planning allows water quality issues to be better addressed. Piecemeal development doesn’t give the city that kind of opportunity. This will influence the need for interchange improvements. Staff’s perspective is this is an excellent opportunity. Mr. Vacha moved to support the implementation of a master plan process per Benchmark Community Builder Collaborative. Mr. Karth seconded the motion. Mr. Chase questioned the cost to the city. Mr. Grochala said the developer stated the master plan process was “a 50/50 project, 100 percent city commitment, and 100 percent developer dollars.” The city may at some point want to spend some money to expand the process to include a larger area in environmental and transportation assessment. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER ISSUES Mr. Heitke addressed the group and stated he sensed the group wondered how effective they were in moving their recommendations forward to the council. He surveyed the council to what degree they felt the advisory boards were effective. There was a lack of consensus on the council. The council is going through a goal setting session on May 22. Economic development will be a part of the conversation and will be shared with EDAC. A public finance workshop is also being planned. Everybody uses public finance for economic development, and a common understanding is needed. Meeting adjourned, 9:15 a.m. 4