Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee

Steering Committee Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Members present: Dave Pankow, Rolly Ackerman, Jason Sanders, Richard Galster, Joel Feist Others present: Robert Davis, planning director, Lance Lang, principal planner, & Reed Elmquist, assistant planner, City of Minot Planning office; and County Commissioner Alan Walter, Jay Fisher, Jim Montgomery, Mia Farstad, & Stephanie Hoffart, president & CEO, Minot Area Development Corporation Pankow called the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. He stated that two new zoning districts had been requested by the Minot Area Development Corporation to develop an agricultural industrial park on the east side of the city. Stephanie Hoffart stated that the AGT Foods facility would be incorporated into the agribusiness development. They had been required to provide 126 parking spaces and 113 trees when they expanded. The requirement for trees contradicted a higher-level regulation that trees not be planted as they attract birds and vermin, which put food stores at risk of contamination. MADC had been in communication with the Burlington, Northern, & Santa Fe Railroad to request a rail spur that would serve the agribusiness park as part of the railroad’s Certified Communities program. MADC envisioned a specific, industrial use for the agribusiness park. Pankow asked whether BNSF had made any requests of MADC. Hoffart answered that they asked for buildings to be allowed to be built right up to the railroad right-of-way. Pankow questioned which regulations MADC was most concerned about. Hoffart answered that they were requesting a change in the required parking to be based on the number of employees in one shift. Alan Walter added that there were a number of restrictions in the M1 and M2 districts that MADC wished to eliminate for the agribusiness park, that there was no reason to have setbacks, and reiterated Hoffart’s statement that the required trees would have the unintended consequence of attracting more birds and vermin. Pankow stated that several amendments to the zoning ordinance had bypassed the Steering Committee, but he was greatly favorable to attracting jobs and industry to the city. While concerns of neighboring landowners would be addressed, he hoped to get the entire revision reviewed by the Steering Committee in time for the April Planning Commission meeting on the 24th. Walter then commented that the I1 district would serve as a buffer for the more intense I2 district. CHAPTER 15.2 - "I1” NORTHEAST LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT Section 15.2-2. General Purpose and Description: The Light Industrial Park District includes a broad spectrum of land uses, some of which can be compatible with mixed use development. The Light Industrial Park District is intended to reserve sites appropriate for location of industrial uses with relatively limited environmental impacts. The development concept consists of industry clusters anchored by light manufacturing, with some wholesale and selected retail components. Best practices have established that office space and even some residential can be incorporated into a mixed use light industrial zone. Outdoor storage in this Steering Committee Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Zoning District will provide for a limited amount of products, supplies or vehicles, which shall be screened from roadways and adjacent properties. This Zoning District should be located on the periphery of industrial areas along major transportation corridors, and/or in a campus like setting. Ackerman expressed concerns about stacking and explosives, and which specific regulations were being referred to under Section 15.2-14. Section 15.2-4. Conditional Use: Within any I-1 District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by a conditional use permit. c) Construction Batch Plant. A temporary demountable facility used for the manufacturing of cement, concrete, asphalt, or other paving materials intended for specific construction projects. Other similar uses as listed in Section 14-4 as approved by the City Council. Feist questioned why a conditional use permit was being required for construction batch plants. Walter answered that use could potentially conflict with the agricultural industries intended for the development, if established in an unsuitable location. Feist countered that no complaints had been made regarding batch plants. Walter responded that it was necessary to be cognizant of the proximity of odors and other environmental impacts. Davis stated that initially only one district was intended, but was divided to mirror M1 and M2, and clarified that the “industry clusters” were intended to facilitate logistics. Hoffart requested that the sentence “Best practices have established that office space and even some residential can be incorporated into a mixed use light industrial zone” be removed as MADC did not want any encouragement of residential development in this zone. Feist questioned how “outdoor storage” would be quantified. Davis answered that it was outlined under the permitted uses listed in Section 15.2-3, and proposed referencing that section in the paragraph. Pankow questioned what the screening requirements would be. Lang answered that under Section 15.2- 8b, screening will only be required on the perimeter of the agribusiness park. Section 15.2-2. General Purpose and Description: The I-1 district is intended to provide space in attractive and appropriate locations for certain types of low-impact business and employment uses in a campus-like setting typical of business and industrial parks. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay would provide for more creative arrangements of buildings and open space that promote goods and idea exchange, reduce transportation costs and enhance synergies for value chain based cluster development. Ackerman commented that a PUD overlay would be subject to the scrutiny of neighboring landowners, the City Council, and others. Davis responded that MADC and the developer could provide a master plan. Ackerman stated that a PUD would not provide enough flexibility. Davis proposed replacing “Planned Unit Development overlay” with “master planned approach”. Steering Committee Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Feist questioned whether the entire proposed acreage for the agribusiness park would be rezoned at once. Davis answered that only the land owned by MADC would be immediately rezoned. Feist asked how this rezone might affect values of neighboring properties. Davis answered that the entire acreage is intended for Industrial on the Future Land Use Map. Ackerman added that the vast majority of that land is already zoned industrial. Ackerman proposed that “Northeast” be taken out of the districts’ names so as not to confine them to one quadrant of the city. CHAPTER 15.2 - "I1” LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT Section 15.2-2. General Purpose and Description: The Light Industrial Park District includes a broad spectrum of land uses, some of which can be compatible with mixed use development. The Light Industrial Park District is intended to reserve sites appropriate for location of industrial uses with relatively limited environmental impacts. The development concept consists of industry clusters anchored by light manufacturing, with some wholesale and selected retail components as outlined in Section 15.2-3. Outdoor storage in this Zoning District will provide for a limited amount of products, supplies or vehicles, such as those identified in Section 15.2-3, which shall be screened from roadways and adjacent properties. This Zoning District should be located on the periphery of industrial areas along major transportation corridors, and/or in a campus like setting. The I1 district is intended to provide space in attractive and appropriate locations for certain types of low-impact business and employment uses in a campus-like setting typical of business and industrial parks. A master planned approach would provide for more creative arrangements of buildings and open space that promote goods and idea exchange, reduce transportation costs and enhance synergies for value chain based cluster development. Targeted uses include accessory and value-added businesses such as transportation, distribution, manufacturing, and warehousing that support the base agri-business tenants and energy related establishments. Some of the permitted uses in I1 may also be permitted in other zoning districts such as M1, however, all development standards and regulations pertaining to the I1 district are found solely in this chapter, unless otherwise referenced. I1 district are designated on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Development Plan as “Industrial.” Motion to approve changes by Ackerman, seconded by Feist. Motion carried. Section 15.2-3. Uses Permitted: a) Distribution and Transportation Use Types 7) Container Yard. A facility where cargo containers are transshipped between different transport vehicles, for continued transportation. Lang questioned whether a time limit should be imposed for container storage. Steering Committee Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Jim Montgomery questioned whether this would conflict with Port of North Dakota regulations. Jay Fisher stated that a container storage yard had previously been considered about 15-16 years ago. Galster questioned whether a limit on stacking containers should be imposed. Pankow and Ackerman agreed no limit to the number of containers stacked on top of each other would be necessary. Hoffart stated that scrapping and recycling of containers should be permitted. Davis proposed adding “stored”, “manufactured”, and “recycled” to Section 15.2-3a7. Lang questioned whether container yards should be moved to the I2 Heavy Industrial Park District. Fisher agreed. Lang also proposed moving open storage to I2. Ackerman then moved to accept the changes to I2. Seconded by Sanders, the motion carried. The Committee then agreed to reconvene the morning of April 11 at 7:30. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 A.M. Minutes completed by Reed Elmquist, Assistant Planner