Loading...
EDA Minutes 05-10-2017MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Wednesday, May 10th, 2017 — 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Steve Johnson, Tracy Hinz, Jon Morphew, Jim Davidson, and Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Jim Thares and Angela Schumann 1. Call to Order Bill Demueles called the meeting of the EDA to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Consideration of additional agenda items None. 4. Consent Agenda BILL TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. JIM DAVIDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. a. Consideration of approving Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 12, 2017 Recommendation: Approved the Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 12, 2017. b. Consideration of approving Regular Meeting Minutes – April 12, 2017 Recommendation: Approved Regular Meeting Minutes – April 12, 2017. c. Consideration of approving Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 24, 2017 Recommendation: Approved Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 24, 2017. d. Consideration of approving Special EDA Meeting Minutes – April 25, 2017 Recommendation: Approved Special EDA Meeting Minutes – April 25, 2017. e. Consideration of approving payment of bills Recommendation: Approved payment of bills through April, 2017. E Consideration of approving payment to Cuningham Group Recommendation: Approve payment for $20,000. Regular Agenda 5. Consideration of Update and Review Process of 2017 Housing Study Jim Thares provided the completed iteration of the Housing Study to the EDA for review. He asked that the EDA to not approve the plan, but simply review it and provide comments before the next meeting. During the June 14t" EDA Meeting, WSB would present the plan. Bill Tapper asked if a workshop could be held prior to the regular June meeting to review the study in depth. Thares confirmed with Schumann adding that some of that discussion should occur during the regular EDA meeting because it is open to the public and televised. The board concurred. 6. Consideration of Outdoor Storne Ordinance Revisions Angela Schumann reviewed proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance for outdoor storage that were developed by staff and reviewed by the Industrial and Economic Development Committee. Schumann explained that it started with discussions regarding industrial land availability to accomplish comprehensive plan goals of creating and retaining jobs and growing tax base. The goal with the proposed amendments was to seek balance between the City and developer expectations. The EDA and IEDC are cognizant of the need for outdoor storage. Presently, the existing ordinance allows open outdoor storage as an accessory use in the I-1 (Light Industrial) and 1-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning Districts when adjacent to other industrial land uses. When outdoor storage is proposed adjacent to residential and commercial, it requires a conditional use permit. Outdoor storage is not allowed in the IBC District. Staff and the IEDC had differing approaches to the size allowable for outdoor storage. Staff proposed permitting outdoor storage in the 1-1 of up to 30 percent of the building and a conditional use permit for up to 50 percent of the building. In the I-2 Zoning District, outdoor storage would be up to the size of the principal building. IEDC believed the I-1 and 1-2 Districts should allow outdoor storage up to 50 percent of the building and same square footage of the building with a conditional use permit. Fencing and screening would also be incorporated in the new ordinance. The proposed ordinance would allow a fence up to 15 feet and provided specifications for landscaping. Fences and walls also had materials specifications. Schumann also stated that changes to the setback were proposed. The proposal was to adjust the setbacks to be 15 feet on the side and rear, and 50 feet when adjacent to properties other than industrial (consistent with the building setbacks). Schumann noted that there was no clear concept of where outdoor storage should occur on a site. City staff proposed including language in having outdoor storage only in the rear or interior side yards. Schumann explained that if screening included trees that could reach 30-35 feet high, storage could be as tall as those trees. Storage and shipping containers would be allowed in screened areas on asphalt or concrete. Pa Schumann clarified that the amendments would go to the June 6th Plaiming Commission meeting which would include a public hearing. Demueles asked what considerations were made in regards to stormwater runoff and MPCA standards. Schumann stated that the majority of industrial outdoor storage users receive permitting from the MPGA. The City Grading and Erosion Control Management Plan are modeled from the MPCA standards. Demueles asked if fabric type buildings would be allowed for outdoor storage. Schumann responded that tarp, hoop, or fabric buildings are no longer allowed for building materials. Tracy Hinz asked how a discrepancy gets sorted out between City Staff and IEDC. Schumann responded the Planning Commission and City Council would decide the final course of action. Bill Tapper expressed the increased difficulties for businesses to locate in Monticello. He asked for clarification on the tree plantings. Schumann responded that the proposal included one tree for every 6 feet of fence. Steve Johnson asked about a provision in the proposed impervious surface requirement for outdoor storage and the Atlas 14 stormwater standards. Schumann stated that through the MPCA's standards, the impervious surface is required. She also explained that typically a crushed rock located in areas of outdoor storage creates similar runoff and drainage issues. Johnson expressed that additional costs would be associated with developing outdoor storage areas. Schumann confirmed for new users. Johnson expressed concern with this amendment and its effect on the competitiveness of Monticello. Tapper asked how trash enclosures would be affected. Schumann stated that trash enclosures would need to be screened appropriately. The area for trash enclosures would also be counted against the total allowable area for outdoor storage. Jon Morphew asked if refuse containers currently counted against outdoor storage. Schumann declined. Morphew asked if tall equipment (e.g. boom trucks) could be stored, even if trees were not fully grown. Schumann confirmed. Lloyd Hilgart asked if any current businesses were looking to expand their outdoor storage needs and if feedback had been received. He also asked if businesses would be going into compliance under the proposed amendment. Schumann declined. Schumann recognized the concerns of the EDA Commissioners and stated that staff did not intend for the proposed amendment to have opposite effects on creating jobs and tax base. Hinz asked what would happen to businesses that would not be conforming to the proposed amendments. Schumann stated there is existing lawful and unlawful non- conforming section of the code. Schumann stated if the storage was existing today according to the current ordinance, they would be considered existing lawful nonconforming to the new ordinance as long as they do not expand. Tapper asked about screening from the public right of way and from the angle that would need to occur. Schumann stated that would be determined during site review. Hilgart expressed concerns for balancing the need for outdoor storage throughout the city with the comprehensive plan goals. Demueles asked if covenants were placed on industrial land if that would override City Ordinances. Schumann declined, stating that the City Ordinances are first then the covenants. Morphew expressed concerns property owners of undeveloped industrial land may have. Schumann summarized the comments of the EDA. She said there would be concerns for landscaping, trash enclosures, and size of storage. Johnson and Tapper preferred the IEDC recommendation. 7. Consideration of Otter Creek Business Park Land Sale Pricing Guidelines Jim Thares reminded the EDA that the guidelines were reviewed at a previous EDA workshop meeting. Thares stated that the changes to the guidelines were taken from the comments at the past meeting. Thares also showed the EDA the City of Burnsville and the City of Elk River's scoring worksheets. The two cities use the scoring sheet for TIF Districts, rather than for pricing at an industrial park. He noted that the main reason for the guidelines was to create a rational approach to pricing land in the industrial development park. The criteria includes: number of new employees, number of jobs per acre, average wages for new jobs, public assistance per new jobs, development assessed value per acre, business retention, ratio of private versus public investment in project, and significant community impact. A total of 36 points would be available. Thares noted that the Burnsville and Elk River examples could be used by Monticello for TIF or Tax Abatement funding, too. Bill Tapper asked for clarification on `new employees'. Thares responded that meant new employees that come to Monticello for work. Bill Demueles asked why new jobs where not ranked as high as retained jobs. Thares explained that was how Burnsville's guidelines were set up. Demueles asked that they be weighted equally. Tapper stated that there should be different guidelines for existing businesses that are expanding. Thares confinned that could be created. Hilgart also agreed that business retention and job creation should be considered equal. 12 Johnson stated concerns with subjective criteria and analysis. Thares thought they could also look at other comprehensive plan goals to boost the ranking analysis, which may be considered subjective. Johnson voiced concerns with bias and liability issues. Morphew suggested talking to the City Attorney regarding equal protection. Demueles preferred the Elk River approach, which does not provide specific financial amounts, but rather uses a scale from high, moderate, low, or ineligible. BILL TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION. STEVE JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. 8. Consideration of Director's Report Jim Thares explained the schedule for the Small Area Study. A joint meeting workshop to review the draft plan with the Planning Commission, City Council, and EDA would occur on May 31 st from 5 -7 pm with an open house following immediately after the workshop. The public would also be able to provide input during the City's Walk `n' Roll Event. The EDA would have the opportunity to review and approve the plan on either June 14th or 21 st. The Planning Commission would review the plan on June 11 th for recommendation for adoption to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The City Council would review for final approval on July 24th. Thares also reviewed current prospects in the city. He noted that Shred -n -Go was provided an offer from the EDA for land in Otter Creek Business Park. Shred -n -Go responded with a set of questions. The DEED prospect and Project Novus are still awaiting a response from the City. Thares noted that he attended the DEED Shovel -Ready workshop. Thares also stated that he would like to attend the EDAM Conference June 28th — 30th. The board agreed that he should attend. Bill Tapper suggested moving the Small Area Study meeting to June 21 st because of the lengthy housing study discussion on June 14th. The board agreed. 9. Adjourn BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:20 PM. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: May 10, 2017 Attest: f�u� Jim ares, Economic Development Director