CCP 10-25-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

up and should be moved by the City. The City took the position that Ashland should pay for any relocation costs, but eventually agreed to cover the costs in exchange for other concessions. The City is demanding certain protections from Ashland, namely indemnification against 3rd party claims and a promise that they won't come after the City for clean-up costs. Ashland has now agreed to those demands. Commercial Marketing Activities Director Fernelius reported that the most promising lead to date is a New Brighton-based medical device manufacturer that is looking for expansion space. The broker for the company contacted Colliers recently inquiring about site availability. The company is involved in manufacturing, which is limited to 25% of floor area under the Northwest Quadrant zoning code. Depending on the amount of manufacturing space, this could be an issue if the project gained some momentum. A second issue would be making sure a new building had sufficient market value and development density to generate needed tax base. The company's current building is valued about $15 less per square foot than the current DSI/Shavlik building (formerly known as Transoma). As staff has mentioned before, rarely will the City have competing development proposals at a given time. In other words, it is unlikely that two developers will propose a project for a site, meaning decisions will often be made on a case-by-case basis. To aid the City in making a decision, it might be helpful for the EDC to develop a list of selection criteria. These could help identify tradeoffs that might be needed to achieve the City's development objectives. Chairperson Zisla suggested explaining the value of a price per square foot, and educating the commission on various scenarios. Commissioner Smith agreed, stating it is relevant to know the value of various uses. Director Fernelius reported he plans to share updated financial projections with the commission by November. Other Topics Request from Planning Commission to Review Commercial/Industrial Landscaping Standards. Director Fernelius explained that over the course of the past few months, the Planning Commission has been discussing potential changes to the commercial/industrial landscaping standards in the zoning code. Currently, the zoning code has very minimal requirements for new construction and no standards for additions or expansions. The City Council directed the commission to re-examine these standards and provide recommendations on a zoning code amendment. On September 7th, the Planning Commission met in a work session and reviewed the latest research. The commission is interested in public input, especially from business owners and thought that the EDC might be a good group to screen the proposed policy changes. Director Fernelius introduced City Planner Janice Gundlach. It was explained that historically, the City has divided policymaking recommendations among different commissions. On occasion there may be overlap between groups, but typically the input is directed back to Council rather than through another commission. This circumstance is somewhat unusual in that the EDC is being asked to weigh in on a land use matter. Given the fact the EDC has representation from the business community, it seemed appropriate to present the issue. Any feedback the EDC would like to provide to the Planning Commission would be greatly appreciated. The Planning Commission will conduct a hearing on the matter in October and then present to the City Council for consideration City Planner Gundlach gave an overview of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Beach questioned if there are rainwater containment requirements for parking lots included in the ordinance. City Planner Gundlach stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)regulates storm water, and as part of the application process applicants are required to contact RCWD. Chairperson Zisla asked how 10%was arrived at in section C:8;At least 10%of the total area shall be landscaped. City Planner Gundlach explained that the Planning Commission reviewed neighboring city's policies when drafting the ordinance and 10% was common. Commissioner Smith commented that many businesses in New Brighton have small lots, and satisfying the requirements of the ordinance may be difficult. City Planner Gundlach clarified that the ordinance would be triggered only in the event of a lot expansion or addition to the building. Additionally it was