Loading...
IDC Minutes 03-06-2007MINUTES MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Mike Benedetto, Mary Barger, Bill Tapper, Jim Johnson, Lynne Dahl-Fleming, Zona Gutzweiller MEMBERS ABSENT: Barb Schwientek, Dick Van Allen, Tom Feaski, Kelli Huxford, Don Roberts, Dan Olson, Patty Haiby, STAFF PRESENT: Jeff O'Neill, Angela Shumann. STAFF ABSENT: Ollie Koropchak COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Clint Herbst, Council Member and Wayne Mayer. GUEST: Bob Grabinski was present replacing Patty Haiby, Chamber rep who was absent. IDC MISSION STATEMENT: To increase the industrial tax base , to create jobs at liveable wage-levels, and to maintain a favorable and desirable industrial environment in the City of Monticello. Call to Order. (Minutes recorded by Lynne Dah]-Fleming in absence of Ollie who was on vacation.) Vice Chair Benedetto called the IDC meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. however, there was no quorum. 2. In the absence of a quorum no vote was taken to approve the February 6th meeting minutes. Approval of the February 6th IDC minutes will be tabled until the next meeting. 3. In the absence of a quorum, Benedetto asked staff guests Jeff O'Neill and Angela Shumann to make their presentation to update the IDC on possibilities for additional land for a new industrial park. Possibilities included: - Land at the west end of the current Monticello Business Center adjacent to County Road 39 & I-94. This is the Spike property, approx. 50 acres adjacent to the YMCA and current City industrial park. The lift station is already established and ready to go in this area. It may be that this area is also desirable for a second interchange off I-94. Mayor Herbst commented that another interchange possibility is the land near Orchard Road and the Osowski Flea Market area. Don Tomann asked if the City saw the Spike property near the YMCA and County Road 39 as commercial or industrial use? O'Neill replied that it would be more industrial in use. He also said Ryan Companies is looking at additional land in Monticello located east of Highway 25 due to commuter traffic coming into town. However, if a second interchange goes up on the west end of town this area may also be desirable for commercial use. The current development of the City's updated comprehensive plan needs to address these issues in order to define this type of area. Even though the comprehensive plan sets these ideas in motion, a property owner can request to change the use of the land followed by the City's proper procedure and process to change its use. Bob Grabinski, Chamber representative, asked if the City's promises to industrial park business owners are being kept and followed through with the proper procedure and process for changed uses? Tomann added to Grabinski's question by stating that the integrity of the City's planning and how it • relates to existing industrial business owners can be questioned as to what process is followed. He referred to the Assessment Agreement signed in May of 2005 (SW Quadrant of I-94/CSAH 18) Doc. No. A 964085 executed between the City of Monticello and Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. and signed by Mayor Clint Herbst and Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator and Shawn Weinand, . Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. This document states in Item #6 under Additional Assessments: "Any part of the Subject Property located south of Chelsea Road described in paragraph 3.c., 3.d., and 3.e. herin, which is rezoned for retail use at the time it develops shall pay an additional assessment for the Project of Fifty Cents ($.50) per square foot of the net acreage of the property rezoned for retail use. (Note: a copy of this agreement was included in a previous IDC meeting packet.) Tomann went on to say that the City knew about this agreement and signed it without the existing industrial business owners in the area were being sufficiently informed prior to the agreement. He also commented he had difficulty with the City's process of how it decides to move forward. In this case with the current ordered road reconstruction project for Chelsea Road on the Council Agenda 2/12/07 and how it relates to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed Fleet Farm Council Agenda 2/26/07 followed by a request for rezoning of industrial to commercial. Tomann stated that the order of the process seems "not in order" The May 2005 agreement the City drafted and signed does not match up with the stated proper procedure and process O'Neill mentioned would need to take place in order to change the use of land. Tomann stated that agreements that get signed with property owners (ie. Weinand in 2005) affects the proper procedure and process. O'Neill commented that perhaps the City should have approached all of the industrial business owners in this area to see if they wanted to be assessed instead of the current property owner (Weinand) being led to believe that his land could become commercial. Bill Tapper said he is an advocate of anotheriInterchange and to purchase the land near this area now. Perhaps the location of a second interchange may occur near the Orchard Road area (Excel Nuclear Power Plant) but that possibility is most likely further down the road in the future. He also stated that commercial use of the land near County Road 30 West and the golf course is obvious. He also added that perhaps the City could better connect Broadway to County Road 39 West with changed alignment via the interchange. He restated that the City should look at purchasing land now in order to gain control of the area for a possible interchange location. O'Neill added that the consultants working on the comp plan would be provided this input from the IDC. Vice Chair Benedetto asked who has the authority to change the zoning for land use? O'Neill answered that the property owner can request a change for rezoning with the City. The Planning Commission then conducts one or more public hearings on the issue and then makes a recommendation to the Council within 60 days. The Council has the final say with a majority vote to rezone or not.O'Neill stated that Fleet Farm property owners made an application for rezoning on 3/5/07 to change the land use from industrial to commercial. This means there is a 60 day review process by the City followed by Planning Commission's recommendation to Council and then Council's vote. Vice Chair, Benedetto asked the question if a business owner wants to be heard do they need to attend the March 15th Comprehensive Task Force Planning Meeting.as the Public hearing had already occurred on February 12th at which five industrial business owners were heard opposing the Chelsea Road Reconstruction Project. Benedetto also noted that the IDC could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission Meeting set for April 3. Mary Barger asked how it was that an order could be requested for an Environmental Assessment Study on the property at the proposed Fleet Farm site currently zoned as industrial property. O'Neill answered that Mills Corporation has title to the property and the owner's signature is on the application. Wayne Mayer, Council Member asked for clarification, saying that if there were no Fleet Farm involved, is it IDC's position that Chelsea Road needs no reconstruction or improvement? Tomann replied that the existing industrial business owners were told that repaving would eventually occur on the road but not curb and gutter as proposed with the current project plan. Brett Weiss, WSB indicated at the last Council Meeting that the current water run off is sufficiently working without curb and gutter. Tomann continued with the comment that curb and gutter is premature of rezoning to a commercial use. Current industrial use does not require curb and gutter. Furthermore, existing industrial business owners were not included in the City's choice via their agreement signed in 2005 or its options. City Staff noted that the original agreement was discussed in 2003, revised and signed in 2005. Tomann further noted that this meant there were several years of awareness on the City's part before it finally made mention of it to existing property owners. O'Neill commented that there was a need to fund the new interchange at the current Target location. and at the time the City allowed vacant land owners to contribute to the project. It's not a question of if Chelsea Road needs reconstruction as much as it is an issue of timing and when it should be done. It will need to be done eventually. Tapper then asked whether or not we need to do it now? The answer is yes, only if the Fleet Farm property is rezoned to commercial but we're putting the cart before the horse because it is not yet rezoned and the proper process is not being followed. Shumann asked the IDC if they felt the land use in this area was appropriate for a Fleet Farm? Was this the issue or is it the dollar amount of the property owner's assessment for the road project? Tapper stated that commercial use is eventually going to come to this area. However, a decision of land use (rezoning) should be accomplished first and then road reconstruction second, not the reverse order as it is. Decision to reconstruct Chelsea Road should be based on zoning and not before. Tomann added that the word "commercial" is abused. Industrial use is better understood. He noted that Commercial/Retail relates to stores and Commercial/Business would be hotels or restaurants, something that would enhance the industrial neighborhood. No doubt, small towns need big box retail exposure and yes, it does affect smaller business but we need a balance and what is it? We need to evaluate where big box should be placed and locating it in the middle of industrial land may not be appropriate. Commercial use near industrial needs to be a different use to benefit the area like hotels our clients and customers can use or restaurants rather than retail customers and high traffic. There is a frustration with the City's process and how it is moving forward with this project.Tomann also noted that the City made an agreement with land owners in 2005 which would cover the costs of any penalties. So, if the City had the possibility of being assessed $200,000-250,000 in penalties, that amount could have been spread over all the land owners. Patty Haiby (absent), Chamber Representative requested that Council members meet with industrial business owners as a way to discuss the issue. However, this was not possible due to the fact that no more than two Council Members can attend a closed meeting. Vice Chair, Benedetto stated that IDC's position is that the City's current process and procedure is not acceptable. Why change the zoning south of Chelsea Road when IDC desires it to stay industrial? IDC would like to recommend what type of commercial should go in this location. 4. Follow-up Business or Reports: Tabled until next meeting: A. Marketing Committee -Dahl-Fleming B. BRE/Town Hall Concerns/Issues - VanAllen C. Out-door Storage and Comp Plan Update (next meeting set for March 15)- Barger D. Transportation -Tapper 5. City Council Update: Continued .. . A. Meeting between Chadwick, Staff and Mayor 3/1/07 for industrial land possibilities B. Ordered Chelsea Road Reconstruction Project C. Environmental Assessment Worksheet for proposed Fleet Farm Above items previously discussed at presentation by staff at opening of meeting. D. Fiber Optics -Mayer Fiber Optics Task Meeting occurred on 3/5/07 which included review of apre-engineering study for the City-wide project. A special fiber workshop will be conducted on March 22 for the Council and is open to the general public. This workshop will update the Council on the past three months work by the Task Force which includes public communication on the project, pre-engineering work, RFP for bonding, wholesale voice and video options and research into what type of entity should be formed by the City. A request for a release of additional funding to complete the tasks at hand for developing an RFP for design/build, interviewing and selection of an underwriter for bonding will be presented to Council. These funds will be repaid by the bonds. Mayer said there was mention that there may be a possibility of the school district leasing some of its fiber to the City in this project and asked Jim Johnson, School Superintendent and IDC Member if this was true. Johnson said he would need to check on the franchise agreement in place but it was certainly a possibility.. Vice Chair Benedetto mentioned that an action Item or #S B. on the a en a f g d for Old Business be noted that since a request by IDC to meet with Council members in a closed meeting could not legally occur if more than two Council persons were present, it was suggested that a representative from IDC be present at the March 15th Planning Commission Meeting and also at the April 3 Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the Chelsea Road Reconstruction Project not moving forward before rezoning occurs. Tomann noted that there is a need to relieve some pressure for clarification in the City's 2005 Assessment Agreement and that a serious loss of trust has occurred between the City and existing industrial owners due to no participation in the decision of the agreement the City signed with vacant land owners. Mayor Herbst followed with the comment that the Interchange property owners need to market their property which means they need to have the road reconstruction done. Barger commented that the investment in community by current industrial owners is compromised if retail commercial is located in this industrial area. O'Neill said that the City needs to complete the Chelsea Road reconstruction and get it behind us and that the best thing for the IDC to do is to voice its concern regarding rezoning and its affects.Lynn Dahl-Fleming requested clarification for her recording of the IDC Meeting Minutes and asked if the Assessment Agreement is part of the drive to improve Chelsea Road. O'Neill answered, yes, to some degree it is. Johnson added that the School District was aware that the Chelsea Road improvements would be coming when the Roundabout was constructed. A letter of thanks and recognition for past Chair Paul Kleinwachter was signed by IDC members and will be sent by City Staff. The Annual Meeting, vote to elect 2007 IDC Chair, vote to amend or re-affirm the 2007 Action Statement, Goals and Tasks and replacement of membership position vacated by Kleinwachter were tabled as no quorum was present at the meeting. Meeting adjourned 8:45 a.m. Next IDC meeting -April 3, 2007.