IDC Agenda 08-05-2003AGENDA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 7:00 a.m.
Academy Room - 505 Walnut Street
MEMBERS: Chair Mary Barger, Vice Chair Tom Lindquist, Bill Tapper, Dick Van Allen, Tom Ollig, Don
Roberts, Mike Benedetto, Barb Schwientek, Dan Olson, Kelli HuXford, Tom Feaski, and Lynne
Dahl.
COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Bruce Thielen.
STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, John Simola, Fred Patch, and Ollie Koropchak.
GUEST: Stuart Johnson, Coldwell Banker Commercial
IDC MISSION STATEMENT: To maintain and increase the industrial tax base and to create jobs in the
City of Monticello, Minnesota.
7:00 a.m. 1. Call to Order. (Please read the minutes and information prior to the meeting.)
I.5 Introductio~Stuart Johnson. C p..r. ~..~
7:02 2. Vote to approve the June 3, 2003 IDC minutes.
7:05 ~~ Updates by Mayor Thielen cy~n.o~`~.c~ o-O~M'~O" ~...) ~1 . S'.3o
~++w~ ~~~~. Progress on annexation and scheduled township/city council meeti~..
r •r.N ~_~ ~ _...
.rn~~~~,,~~- `~ i-B. Summary of local elected officials meeting of June I8. S•~.~.~ (o~'~w•.~ •- ~~~-+~
~. ~~^'~sr~ ~~Q C. Meeting of city officials to~et~00~3 Council's Community Vision & Governing
_ ~ ~ „_ ~.r Policies. ~ n ~'`~`~ ~ o,~.A. ~~
~t/_'-~c D. Highway 25 Traffic. 'Z c9-.,, w 'r u - ; "~ ~' "~y~ ~N-. •~ e,.•--~-•~
E. Housing Development Status. ~~"`'""~^'`~`~~~tl,~,~„
'~~ '~ hs, °,,.-gw~ mod„ . F ,,~,~.a ~,,,,, L ~;r~
7:20~~ 4. Reports: ~, ~,,, ~„~ C .: l"'la~'1 ~~
~~ .~~,,p,SL.~, A. Mini task force meeting on Osowski's land -Van Allen/Barger z. '~~ 't ~"`~"`' ~'`'P
~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ B. Economic Development Report -Koropchak.
~ e~~• e.
7:35 ~~ Discussion on and to continue development of a list of potential tasks to accomplish the
~, ~.J~>~ ;~ ~ goal of the IDC: To provide a continuous stream of available industrial land with
,N e-'''~'" infrastructure potential.
~, ~~ '~,.~.A/" A. Review the draft copy of the August 5, 2003 Planning Commission Agenda for
~} industrial related items. Discuss and vote on an IDC position or action if
~M necessary.
,~c~'F'"' ~,~.."~ 1. JME -Continued interim use/conditional use permit allowing outside
~ ~ ~Y~ storage.
~r.~ 2. ~ Otter Creek -Consideration of an amendment to the comprehensive
~_ ~, yW' ~ plan and consideration of an amendment to a concept stage planned
~~.~ unit development for Otter Creek Crossing.
~~C~ea~' 3. Other
.~s-*~ B. City Budget 2004 -IDC recommendation to City and HRA to budget matching
,~,~ dollars for future industrial land.
8:15 6. Other Business.
Chamber Updates -Feaski. (Date of Chamber/IDC Banquet)
8:25 7. Adjournment.
• MINUTES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, June 3, 2003 - 7:00 a.m.
Academy Room - 505 Walnut Street
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Mary Barger, Vice Chair Tom Lindquist, Bill Tapper, Dick
Van Allen, Barb Schwientek, Dan Olson, Tom Feaski, and Lynne
Dahl.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Ollig, Don Roberts, Mike Benedetto, and Kelli Huxford.
COUNCIL LIAISON ABSENT: Mayor Bruce Thielen.
STAFF PRESENT: Jeff O'Neill and Ollie Koropchak.
IDC MISSION STATEMENT: To maintain and increase the industrial tax base and to
create jobs in the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
Call to Order. (Please read the minutes and information prior to the meeting.)
Chair Barger called the IDC meeting to order at 7:05 a.m.
2. Vote to approve the May 6 2003 IDC minutes.
Tom Lindquist made a motion to approve the May 6, 20031DC mim~tes. Lynne Dahl
seconded the motion and with no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as
written.
Updates b~a~or Thielen
A. Prouress on annexation and development of new agreement.
O'Neill reported a meeting between the township and City Council will be held by the
first Council meeting in July (July 14). Mayor Thielen preparing the agenda.
B. Scheduled date of next ioint meeting of local elected officials and meeting of city
officials to set 2003 Council's Community Vision & Governing Policies.
The followup meeting of the local elected officials is scheduled for Wednesday, June 18,
7:00 p.m. in the Mississippi Room. Round table discussions to identify opportunities for
collaboration is the agenda.
The Council will meet on Monday, July 14, 5:00 p.m. to review goals submitted by
commissions and set the 2003 Community Vision & Governing Policies.
4. Reports:
A. Mini task force meeting on Osowski's land -Van Allen/Koropchak.
Van Allen reported that Jeff, HRA Commissioner Dan Frie, Koropchak, and himself met
May 20. At the May meeting, O'Neill summarized work completed by the city engineer
and staff stating the area can be served by extending the sanitary sewer and water trunk
system. Yet to be determined is the cost and timing of the improvements. The proposed
•
IDC Minutes - 6/3/03
Orchard Road interchange is identified on MNDOT's study. Funding the interchange
would be similar to that proposed for I-94 and County 18, 90% local. Xcel's concerns
are security and proposed chemical uses by industries. O'Neill suggested perhaps an IDC
township resident attend Township planning sessions, now ongoing, to preserve the
Osowski area for industrial. After driving the area, Van Allen noted the Osowski
property has a high water table which is a detriment (adds cost) for industrial
construction development. Feaski did not agree as industrial buildings are generally on
concrete slabs. Tapper said he would not build in an area with a high water table.
Koropchak added the area north of Aetna Street appeared to have less wetlands than the
area to the south of Aetna. The task force then drove by the Paumen property noting the
contrast in the soils and wetlands. Koropchak has obtained copies of soil and wetland
maps from the Wright County Soils & Conservation Office. After viewing the high water
table on the Osowski property, a meeting with the Osowski was not suggested until more
research and the consideration of other options. O'Neill said the Paumen property was
purchased about four years ago at about $15,000 to $20,000 per acre. Construction of the
improvements through the Chadwick property will not be completed for two to four
years. Right now Chadwick is held hostage by Hecker. Hecker purchased Rask property
and Chadwick has no access for continuation of Chelsea Road to the west. Freeway land
along West Chelsea recently sold for $8 per square foot. Feaski noted he's working with
a client who can purchase 1.5 acres of land in Ramsey/Andover for $60,000 with no
assessment. Only WAC/SAC fees. The IDC needs to consider cost of land/infrastructure
and short and long term needs. Land options: Osowski, Paumen, Chadwick, and Gold.
Nugget. Partnerships, land options, perhaps an exchange of trunk fees for industrial land
with Gold Nugget. The mini task force to consider all four land options.
B. Economic Development Report.
Koropchak reiterated the written report adding she had an appointment with Les Wurm at
l :00 p.m. to set a date for the open house and to see his interest to replace the TCDC ad
in the Discover Monticello journal. UMC have movers scheduled for August 23.
Members discussed the outcome of the non-enacted Special TIF Bill.
5. Discussion on and to continue development of a list of potential tasks to accomplish the
goal of the IDC' To~rovide a continuous stream of available industrial land with
infrastructure potential.
A. Review the draft copy of the June 4 2003 Planning Commission Agenda for
industrial related items. Discuss and vote on an IDC position or action if
necessary.
1. Continued - preliminar p~ lat approval Otter Creek Crossing commercial
subdivision. Will be tabled as Chadwick does not own or have access to
property.
2. JME -interim use/conditional use permit allowing outside storage. Jay
. Morrell requested this be tabled.
3. Gold Nugget Devel~ment -Follow-up on land use. The May 28 revised
plat/PUD from Gold Nugget shows 51.18 acres of industrial, 9.80 acres of
commercial, and 9.02 acres of right-a-way.
2
IDC Minutes - 6/3/03
4. Commercial/industrial park fee -Follow-up -development cost estimates.
Koropchak reviewed the permit and trunk fees for the City of Monticello
as prepared by Building Official Patch. Utilizing the UMC model, permit
fees were $69,815 and trunk fees $92,600. Land cost for the IO acres was
$650,000. Fees were based on 10 acres and a 65,000 sq ft facility.
Koropchak noted the TIF reimbursement of $365,000 for land write-down
and the City forgave $83,400 in trunk fees. The IDC had requested total
costs to develop for the purpose of remaining competitive. O'Neill said
park fees should be determined by the demand for parks not by
competitiveness. Development drives the demand for parks not
population. Park fees are for purchase of land and development of new
parks. Cost to maintain the parks is from the General Fund. He
continued stating his research to acquire the 26 acres to the south of 85
Street for ball parks. Asking price $ ~ ,000 per acre. The existing
residential park fees are not consisrwith today's land prices. O'Neill
requested a motion from the IDC in support of park fees for commercial.
Members felt bringing in commercial/industrial development is good for
the community and saw the fee as an opportunity to tax. Koropchak noted
the Council approved increasing the residential park fees from $868 per
unit to $1,200 per unit Jan 2004 and $1,500 per unit Jan 2005 and
thereafter by an inflation factor similar to other fee increases (4%). C/I
fee later after further study.
B. Contimied -Review IDC goals/projects as prepared by Chair Barger
supporting the City Council's Community Vision & Governing Policies.
Vote if applicable.
IDC members made comments to the draft copy of the IDC goals/projects:
Make definite statements as a means of measurement, suggested
establishment of a task force for implementation of the comp plan
consisting of people-at-large and city staff, and recommends the purchase
and/or designation of one lame area for industrial development versus
several small areas. The IDC discussed suggesting once a plan is adopted,
stick to the plan. Tapper questioned if implementation of the comp plan is
plan driven or economic driven. Koropchak noted comments at the
Wright Partnership session encouraged cities to update comp
plans/ordinances and to use the adopted plan ordinances as apro-active
tool rather than re-acting to developers. Conclusion, Barger would make
the appropriate changes and submit to IDC members for comments prior
to the Council session scheduled for July 14.
6. Other Business.
Chamber Updates -Chamber Chair Feaski reported that Susie attended a MN
Tourism Convention in Moorhead, the Chamber participated in Walk & Roll
which attracted about 2,000 people, are scheduled to give out a $750 scholarship
at the high school commencement, will participate in Riverfest, and held a
breakfast on Legislative wrap-up May 29.
IDC Minutes - 6/3/03
Die-cask Storage Legislation - Huxford absent.
No IDC meeting in July.
7. Adjournment.
Tom Feaski made a motion to adjourn, Olson seconded. Motion died for a lack of
quorum. The IDC meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
•
•
~ Q~-~, ~ o
Recorder
4
IDC Agenda - 8/05/03
4B. Consideration of Executive Director's Report.
a) Quick TIF 2003 -The 2003 program designed by Ehlers & Associations has arrived.
Waiting for info from County. Reports due to the Office of the State Auditor by August
1, 2003 .
b) Semi-annual TIF pay-as-you-go payments due August 1, 2003 -For TIF District No.
1-22, the four-year knock down rule applies.
c) Survey - A survey of development costs was prepared using UMC as a model and e-
mailed to about 20 communities. Land cost and if publicly or privately owned industrial
parks were some of the questions. One response from Big Lake.
d) The mini NW Corridor task force met on July 10 at 12:30, city hall. The group will
evaluate four industrial sites identified in the Comp Plan Land Use Map. I've talked with
both Horst Grazer, Gold Nugget, and Steve Lehr, CB Richard Ellis, representing
Chadwick's property.
e) EDA gave a presentation to the owners of Block 35 on July 29. Five of the seven
property owners were in attendance. The EDA offered an EDA/property owner
partnership to foster a revitalization project including rear cosmetic facade,
walkway/plaza area, common trash area and parking improvements. Ratio of financing
1.3 5 Public: l .0 Private.
f) Marketing Committee -Opportunities upcoming - Sponsor a hole at the Wright County
• Partnership Golf Outing in September and advertise on EDAM's web site and Partnership
Brochure..
g) Industrial leads - 30-100 acres, 250,000 sq ft to 500,000 sq ft grocery distribution
center. 30-50 jobs, $12 to $18 per hour wages. No outdoor storage, not large water user.
Lead from State. Out state grocer.
60,000 sq ft industrial user looking to relocate from Rogers, Rockford, Hamel area. 10-
12 acres. Lead from real estate broker.
25,000 sq ft Golden Valley electric/plumbing distribution center looking for lease space.
Outdoor storage. Lead from real estate broker.
30,000-50,000 sq ft office building for lease. Call Center. Property Management Firm.
20,000 sq ft. Construction equipment sales, maintenance, parts & repair. 5 acres.
Concrete business -two silos, outdoor storage, 5-10 acres.
h) UMC -Toured UMC building with Don Toman on July 14 and was guest at Rotary.
Open House planned for the week of October 6. UMC was presented with the National
Tooling & Machining Association Safety Award.
i) TCDC -Twin City Die Castings received approval from the City to modify the job
creation requirements within the City Loan. Reduction from 85 full-time jobs to 42.
Reasons: Overall economy, global competition, use of robotic equipment resulting in
higher skilled jobs but less jobs, and their utilization of several full-time temporary
people which do not qualify for the City Grant. Federal dollars most satisfy HUD
requirements. Interestingly, the projected 42 jobs will generate a total annual wage equal
U
• IDC Agenda - 8/05/03
to or greater than the 85 jobs. The time for hiring of the 42 jobs was extended to July 26,
2004. Doug Harmon told me yesterday, they just got a contract for a million dollar job
for the Monticello facility. The Monticello facility is profitable. The State must now
ratify the Council action of July 28.
j) Executive Director was on vacation from July18 to the 29.
•
2
1 ~
m~ c Deve o men a r
Econo
un
~1.st Annual Wri ht County Scramble 2003
g
A Golf Outing for Marketing & Socializing
tember 25 2003 ~ ~ ~ ~~
Date. Sep ,
Registration: 12:00 Noon
Shotgun Start:1:00 p.m.
Dinner: 6:00 p.m.
Awards/Raffle: 6:30 p.m.
....... $ 55.00
~/lembers: Golf and Dinner ...........................................................
.: `rs: Golf and Dinner ..................................................... ........... $75.00
...................................:......................................................:............... $25.00
y:,
AMY . ~~ld Marsh Golf b, Buffalo MN
mb~ at,,Waltt,
• $100 Includes dinner, program and presentation at hole. ($75 for members)
• • This is designed to allow communities of Wright County an opportunity to make a presentation
about their community at the tee boxes.
• There wilt also be opportunity for company presentations.
.TflURIVAN4EIVT SPONSORS:..
P18ttnUCY1 $500 Signs on 20 carts, display banner at club house, name and logo on
programs, honorable mention, allowed four players and hole
presentation.
Gold $300 Name and logo on programs, honorable mention, hole presentation,
.recognition at bans~uet. ansi allowed two players__
Si1VE'r ...$200 Name and logo on programs, honorable mentton,,hole presentation, and
allowed one player.
Contests Include: , Hole In One • Longest Drive
• Closest To Pin • Longest Putt
Mulligan's for sale C $10. Must be used by person who purchased the Mulligan.
Proceeds raised at the Wright County Promotional Golf Tournament will be used in part for
EnhancirTg the Business Climate of Wright County.
• Questions Please Call Noel LaBine (763) 477-3086 or Jeanene at (763) 477-3000 ext. 3470
..k ..
i S r. t
_ .~ w ~.y~
C
>q ~` ,y,
." h t s.
WClght County Economic
Development PaltnefShlp
RSVP Information
Wright County Scramble 2003
September 25th, 2003
Wild Marsh Golf Course
(Located in Buffalo on County Rd. 12 off of So. County Rd. 25)
12:30 PM until 7:30 PM
Name: Phone:
Organization: Email:
Address: Yes, I am interested in Sponsorship:
o Hole Presentation
o Tournament Sponsor
Names of Foursome:
(If registering individually you will be assigned a team.)
Total Fees Included:
Mail checks to: (Pay before you play)
EDP of Wright County
6800 Electric Drive,
Rockford, M N 55313
Contact:
Noel at (763) 477-3086 or Jeanene at (763) 477-3000 ext. 3470
Email - jstrumC~?whe.org„ nlabineC~?whe.org.
Fax- (763) 477-3054 or
on our website at www.wrightpartnership.org.
Please return by September 1. 2003
07i23i03 10:53 a 612 295 3080 MONTICELLO TIMES P.O1
07/14/09 MO's 7.8:01 N'AX 78Ji788i85 L~NC, i~C. 0002
~1 ~ ~~
• UMC Inc. was recent) resented with the National Toolin & Machi i
Y P g n ng
Association Safety Award. This award Is presented to companies who
have a minimal amount of work-related :injuries in comparison to number
of man hours worked, Due to UMC's outstanding safety record, they were
one of only three companies in the MPMA (Minnesota Precision
Manufacturing Association) to receive the award. 7'he award was
presented by this years NTMA Chairman of the Board, Larry Sippy, and is
given only to the top companies in safety nationally. UMC's success can
be attributed to routinely conducting safety training for ail ernployeQS, and
Laving a Safety Committee that actively monitors the oornpany to ens:xe
safe working conditions throughout the plant. UMC will be moving to the
Monticello community in late summer of 2403.
•
cAk, U
~-
~`
..._~.__ . r..J'
/ ,~-~t,VVI ~ Ckw~,~a
~ ~: i ~
5R.
AGENDA
• REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday -August 5, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and David Rietveld
Council Liaison: Brian Stumpf
Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman
Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held July 1, 2003.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
Continued Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for an Interim Use Permit allowing outside
storage as a principal use in an I-2 zoning district. Applicant: Jay Morrell/JME of Monticello
6. Public Hearing -Consideration of request for a simple subdivision to create two city lots and
consideration of a variance to the rear yard setback. Applicant: Kathleen Gauthier
7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setback requirements to
allow construction of a garage. Applicant: David Kranz
8. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval of the Monticello
Marketplace 2"d Addition commercial subdivision and consideration of approval of concept and
development stage planned unit development. Applicant: Brendsel Properties, Inc.
9. Public Hearing -Consideration of an amendment to the comprehensive plan and consideration of
an amendment to a concept stage planned unit development for Otter Creek Crossing. Applicant:
Otter Creek, LLC
10. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for sketch plan review and consideration of a request
for re-zoning from A-0 to R-1, R-2, and R-2A for a single family residential subdivision.
Applicants: Bison Development Co. and Sylvia Development, L.P.
11. Consideration of appointing a Planning Commission member to the C.R. 18/I-94 Interchange Task
Force.
12. Adjourn
•
•
•
~_
W
V
a N N
~ \ U U w
Q W Z < < U
~
*
= it
o ii
n
v
v
i
m ^ N
i
V +i
m
r Ol In O
~ C
1
~n
a
W
_
2 ~
wo a
w a
w Z
aw~
r a
< ~
J
o m in o o <
~zo 5 5
~/
~ ~/
/ "
/~~~~~
~ ~~ a
' ` 6~
j: - @, ~°'
N \ /
/~ s
~~
.~\~\
~~t~~
r~ ~ ~i s ~~ ~~ __
y _.-.-. --.~
/ P ~~
f / C
[ ~ / sy n 1 _ - -_
I\ ~ l
d.
i ~.~ ~ s~
a ~ ~ J" ~
s
Y
N
~~~. ~m
.~
I' ° \ s
~~ ,~ l
` ~,%~- ~ ~
3 ~ ~;
__~ ~~
i
~C~l
h~
~;
~' ,'~ ~
~ ~
M (jam
O ~"
N
M
N
.~
~/,
~0
V
tt ,
~1
~ U
~Ni 1
~~ ~~
i
C~:
J
Planning, Commission .A~~enda - 08/0>/0
9. Public Hearin: Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Consideration of an amendment to a
planned unit development. Apphcant: Otter Creek LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Otter Creel: LLC is seeking an amendment to the approved concept PUD for the
Otter Creek development. along «~ith an amendment to the City~s Comprehensive
Plan that ~yould chan~~e the land use plan in the Chelsea Road ~~'est area between
90`n Street and Cow7ty High~~ay 39. The current land use plan calls for industrial
over much of the area. ~yith some potential consideration for transitional land uses
adjacent to the existing rural residential uses to the southwest.
The City has had an extensive program of seekin<~ appropriate locations for
industrial development. The most recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
adopted recently follo~~~ing the termination of the Orderly Annexation Agreement.
incorporated the industrial development goal in this area by designating land
along Interstate 94 and Chelsea Road for industrial uses. Some commercial uses
have also been permitted to encroach into this plan. including the I-94 exposure of
the Otter Creek property.
Otter Creek successfully convinced the City to accept this commercial pattern as a
part of its overall PUD proposal. This proposal "tiered" the industrial uses based
on proximit}~ to the freeway. The PUD also identified the proposed residential
area as an area for future study and hinted at possible mid density residential uses
as a transition between the R-1 area and the industrial area. The new. more
refined adjustment to the PUD would establish broad areas of residential uses in
the areas south and west of the power transmission lines. establishin,> 19 acres of
the site to a residential designation.
The proposed change ~~ ould result in a residential ed~~e to the project area. as
contemplated under the original PUD, but would raise several other issues.
Because the long border of the proposed residential subdivision area would border
the po~~~er line. the City ~~ould need to consider v~~hether changing to this pattern
would result in an attractive neighborhood. While power lines are common in the
community. putting additional land in that condition may not be necessar}', ~yhen
there are several other areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan for residential
use. many without power line issues.
A second issue relates to the concept plan proposed by the applicants. The plans
sho~~~ 97 "detached to~ynhomes" on the l9 acres, ~~~ith lot sizes of 36 feet ~~-ide by
1 10 feet deep (approximately x.000 square feet). The City recently adopted a
district ("R-?<'~") to accommodate this type of use with 4~ feet widths and 7,100
square feet of area. This proposal is si~~niticantly more dense than that district
~t~ould permit. For attached to~ynhouses. the City applies a standard of x.000
square feet of lot area per unit.
Planning COn11111SSlon Agenda - 08!0/03
As a final issue. this PUD amendment ~~~ould appear to be some~~•hat consistent
~t~ith the concept PUD. but at odds ~~~ith the City's ]on~~-standing goals for
mdustnal development. Given the prozvnlty to the rest of the industrial area. as
~a~ell as the Chelsea Road corridor and the power transmission lines, planning staff
believes that the transmission line corridor ~~ould be better left with its industrial
desi~~nation.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1\~lotion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
designating the subject 19 acres to Mid-density Residential. based on a
findin~~ that the surrounding land use and transportation pattern supports
the residential designation.
?. Motion to table the request and direct the developer and planning staff to
prepare concept plan revisions that incorporate industrial development
alone the power lines, thereby reducing the area proposed for residential
uses. Motion based on the finding that the surrounding land use and
transportation pattern supports the residential designation.
Motion to recommend denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, based
on a finding that an industrial designation is supported by the City's long-
term industrial development goals. as well as the existing conditions of the
area. including proximity to major commercial/ industrial roads and power
transmission lines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative 2. This alternative places industrial land near the
power lines and maintains some area for residential uses as a transition between
existing residential development and the future industrial land. As noted in the
report. there are several other areas designated for residential uses that are better
suited for residential use. B~• leaving the industrial around the po~-er lines. a
major portion of the site is thus reserved for industrial uses as identified in the
Comp Plan.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A -Aerial Photo
Exhibit B -Narrative description from Developer
Exhibit C -Concept site plan
Exhibit D -Cope of Otter Creel: Concept PUD
•
07/21/20@3 16:12 9522490790 BIRCHLAND DEV. CO.
PAGE 03
Otter Creek Crossings Business Park
PUD Concept Amendment Narrative
The approved concept PUD for this 185 acre project contained the following objectives:
1. Create an attractive extension and transition of uses in the high visibility I-94 corridor
2. Provide the City of Monticello with a development plan that is flexible enough to locate lazge
industrial uses or smaller ones depending on changes in market demand.
3. Extend the Chelsea Road frontage road concept to improve traffic movement between
Highway 25 and CR 39.
4. Buffer existing residential areas (particularly Bondhus Addition).
5. Locate infrastructure that will open up large areas for development beyond this project.
6. Protect and enhance existing wetland areas to serve as an amenity to the business park and
community.
This proposed amendment proposes no changes to the project's overall objectives.
Prouosed Amendment
Recently, the City has begun to look in greater detail at some major City infrastructure projects
within this project (Objective #5) and the proposed extension of School Blvd., in particular, has a
significant impact on the original concept plan. The City has already extended some stormwater
facilities into areas of this project that are not yet annexed and the City will likely be looking for
more detailed planning soon for the location of ins proposed sanitary sewer lift station that will
serve developments beyond the azea contained in this planned unit development. Increasingly, it
seems that the concept PUD should be updated and additional annexation should occur to take
into account the City's street, storm water and sanitary sewer facility needs as well as to provide
flexibility to the City to annex azeas beyond this project which are currently not adjacent to City
borders.
In the first concept approval the project was divided into three areas--A, B and C. Areas A & B
had more detailed discussion, uses and requirements and the developer is proposing no changes
to those areas other than the revision of the street network due to the extension of School Blvd.
Area C, in the original approval, was identified as a future study area that needed to be sensitive
to adjacent residential uses (Objective #4) and it was indicated that this area should be more
concerned with buffering adjacent residential usCs, possibly with the addition of some additional
housing.
The dominant feature in Area C is the large easement for overhead power structures and the
irregular shape that they create in relation to the property lines. This Concept PUD amendment
1
~~~ ~- L
BIRCHLAND DEV. CO. PAGE 04
07!21 2003 16:12 9522490790
buffer azea between the residential uses to the
proposes to use that large easement as a logical
west of Area C and the non-residential uses to the north and east ~ ~ d aTe~s
south and of 5.24 units per acre for this triangul Pe
proposed amendment shows a density The land will lilcely be
of the local street system and lots are only conceptu~•
although planning that s cializes in residential pmjects and the residential
marketed to a development company ~ e PUD pla~ng process.
developer will complete the detailed, development stag
•
2
•
•
---._ .r_.~_._.~V___._
1
F
i
t t~
{~
! i~ nx
O O
n• ~
(~ ~
~ ^^
O l 1
l 1
~C~
i-~
~ \ C
l 1
0 ~~
~ i i
i ~
r
N
W
N
O
O
i~~-
i
i
afi/
/i
~~~
~ ~A
~
0 ~
A
0 N m N V m
IF
> m
K 4
µ + S µ
=~
~
~N~
N ~
N A
~ ~ ~
m
E~h~bi}q- C
1
i
r~
1
f~ qN
O
~
• ~~
~
~_
O
v ~.
^ ~ N~
~ ~
~'
~ r
(/~)
\u~t --
1
O
r^
r
rVr^1
V`
~ •
^,
!++ -.rte
../A v f
0 Q
r
+"'
~~
fl ~ ~
~ a
'a. d- J .
'~
" ~' M ~
,
~
~ ~~
4 ~ o
~~
~ ~
~`h
7
.~ N
N
W
N
O
W
\~
I
I
~`~~~
v/~
A~\
•~
~~
C
N
Exh~bi~q- ~
Otter Creek Crossings Business Park
Description of Approved Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
Development Projects Require Development Stage PUD Approval
Objectives:
The Otter Creek Crossings Business Park is a lame project (18~ acres) and is intended to fulfill
the following objectives:
^ Create an attractive extension and transition of uses in the hi;~h visibility I-94 corridor.
^ Provide the City of Monticello with a development plan that is flexible enough to locate
large industrial uses or smaller ones depending on changes in market demand.
^ Extend the Chelsea Road frontage road concept to improve traffic movement between
Highway 2~ and CR 39.
^ Buffer existing residential areas (particularly Bondhus Addition).
^ Locate infrastructure that will open up large areas for development beyond this project.
^ Protect and enhance existing wetland areas to serve as an amenity to the business park
and community.
Sub-areas•
There are three areas of the proposed business park that have unique characteristics. APlanned
Unit Development approach is being utilized to provide the flexibility to take advantage of those
unique characteristics.
Area A:
This area has superior visibility from I-94 and is immediately adjacent to the existing commercial
businesses on Chelsea Road. The goal in this area is to provide development that has uses and
aesthetic standards that are compatible with the adjacent commercial businesses and provide a
good image of the City to travelers on I-94.
Although the underlying zoning in this whole project is based on the I-lA standards. the
Concept PUD calls for building types in this area to be held to a more stringent design standard.
Specificall}~, the PUD eliminates the use of exposed metal or fiberglass finishes in Area A rather
than allo«~ its use on up to ~0% of the wall surfaces. This ~~~ill make the building design much
more consistent with the commercial areas to the east. In addition. the setbacks in this area may
be the same as in the commercial areas to the east so that there is a consistent "feel'' and massin~~
alone the fronta~~e road and I-94.
Finally, in order to provide a softer transition of uses. provide conveniently located services to
C-vJ~~bit G
future employees of the business park and to allo~~ for expansion of the rapidly diminishing
undeveloped areas in the city that have high«av visibility, the follo«~ing uses to be added to
Area .A.
^ Enclosed boat and marine sales
^ Books. office supplies, stationery stores and copy services
^ Furniture, carpet, rug. tile. gJlass. paint, wallpaper, hardware, and electrical appliance
stores
^ 1\~lotor fuel station. auto repair, car ~~~ash. auto bod}~ shop, fire and batten- stores and
service
^ Machinen~ sales
^ New and used automobile/light truck sales and display
^ Dav care center
^ No outdoor Storage
Area B:
This area has limited highway visibility and most of this area is buffered from the developments
to the east b~~ a large wetland and the existing cemetery property. The goal in this area is to
provide a flexible development plan that would enable the city to develop a large industrial use
or smaller users in response to changing market trends. In addition. since much of this area is
more remote with low visibility, it may provide an opportunity for locating or relocating uses that
the city might not want in a high visibility area. One of the goals in this area is to develop a plan
that quickly ~~ot truck traffic onto Chelsea Road and hi~~hways rather than diverting it towards
residential areas. `
Since this area is not a continuation of existing developed areas, the setbacks remain according
to the I-lA standards.
The uses that we would propose in this area in addition to what is already provided for in the
I-lA are the following:
^ Trucking and trucking service
^ concrete/asphalt plant and manufacture of concrete products
^ Automobile assembly and major repair
Uses above must be conducted inside. Outdoor storage by conditional use permit only.
Area C:
The development in this area will need to be sensitive to the adjacent residential uses. Given that
the overall Otter Creek Crossings Business Park development is quite large and will likely take
mam~ years to develop. the PUD allows this area remain an area for future study to ensure that
the interests of the adjacent residents are preserved. Depending on the market conditions and
development patterns at the time this area is studied. this area potentially endin~~ up as an