IDC Agenda 03-04-2003AGENDA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 4 , 2003 - 7:00 a.m.
Academy Room - 50_5 Walnut Street
•
MEMBERS: Chair Mary Barter, 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
Dah I.
COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Bruce Thielen.
STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, John Simola, Fred Patch, and Ollie Koropchak.
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. I . Call to Order. (Please read the minutes and information prior to the meeting.)
7:02 2. Vote to approve the February 4, 2003, IDC minutes.
7:04 3. Welcome Mayor Thielen and Chamber Chair Tom Feaski.
7:09 4. Reports:
A. BRE Visit -Twin City Die Castings -Benedetto/Koropchak.
Follow-up Barger/B&B Metal and Olson/Bondhus.
B. Economic Development Report -Koropchak.
C. Membership Committee -Barger.
7:29 ~. Discussion on and to continue development of a list of potential tasks to accomplish the
goal of the IDC: To provide a continuous stream of available industrial land with
infrastructure potential.
A. Review the draft copy of the March 4, 200.1 Planning Commission Agenda for
industrial related items. O'Neill. Discuss and vote on an IDC position or
action if necessary.
B. Review the list of recommended actions as prepared by Van Allen to assist in
accomplishing the IDC Mission Statement. Discuss and vote.
7:49 6. Updates by Mayor Thielen.
A. Progress on annexation and development of new agreement.
B. Status of the Council recommendation to establish a task force for
implementation of the Comp Plan.
C. Report on Council establishment of goals/projects for 2003-2008 (Community
Vision & Governing Policies).
8:09 7. Other Business.
8:15 8. Adjournment.
•
MINUTF,S
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, February 4 , 2003 - 7:00 a.m.
Academy Room - 505 Walnut Street
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Mary Barger, Vice Chair Tom Lindquist, Bill Tapper, Dick
Van Allen, Mike Benedetto, Dan Olson, and Lynne Dahl.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Ollig, Don Roberts, Barb Schwientek, Kelli Huxford, and
Tom Feaski.
COUNCIL LIAISON ABSENT: Mayor Brlice Thielen.
STAFF PRESENT: Jeff O'Neill and Ollie Koropchak.
GUEST: Monticello Postmaster John Roden.
1DC 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 7:00 a.m.
2. Vote to approve the January 7, 2003 IDC minutes.
lvlike Benedetto mode a motion to approve the January 7, 20031DC minutes. Seconded
by Bill Tapper and ~n~ith no correc/roes or additions, the minutes were approved as
1~~ritten.
3. Acknowledge Past Chair Van Allen. Chair Barger expressed a "thank you" to Dick
VanAllen for his hard work and over/beyond the call of duty as Chair of the IDC over the
past few years.
Welcome Mayor Thielen and new member. Chair Barger welcomed new member Lynne
Dahl.
Acknowledge Letter of Resignation from Kevin Doty. Members expressed an
appreciation for the years of valuable service contributed to the IDC and requested a letter
and/or certificate be presented to Doty.
Follow-up on Township representation -Benedetto reported that Bill Young declined the
IDC invitation saying he's said, "yes to often." Another option is a township resident.
O'Neill stated with the new council is a step-up move to bridge the gap the between city
and township. The IDC felt a township representative would strength the voice of the
IDC. Lynne stated she lives in the township. It was recommended the membership
subcommittee revisit the issue.
lllC Minutes - 2/4/03
4. Follow-up to IDC letter to Postmaster and Post Office Policies.
As a follow-up to the IDC letter addressed to the Postmaster relative to the non-delivery
of PO box mail, Van Allen was asked to visit with the local postmaster. Van Allen
introduced John Roden, Local Postmaster, to the IDC. Roden said he was disappointed to
receive the IDC letter but happy to be informed. He noted that Monticello is very unique
in that Monticello is one of a few cities with no city delivery because its area has grown
so large. This has increased the PO box section resulting in more problems. Continuing
he noted that the US Postal Policy states mail must be delivered as addressed or returned.
Roden's mission is to serve everyone in the community. His decision is to either rehn-n
mail or let some slide across the line. However, if the sender is not notified of a PO box
than future mail will continue to be addressed incorrectly, never corrected, compounding
the problem. It's like a bank i°eceiving a check for deposit without an account number.
By not following policy puts he and his staff in jeopardy. He distributed a flier stating if
a business or individual gets its mail in a PO box then the PO box number must be
directly above the city, state, and zip; otherwise, the machines will kick the letter out
sending it to an annex station causing delay in delivery. With an average weekly
handling of 70,000-80,000 pieces of mail about 40-70 pieces are kicked out daily.
Responding to bulk mail rejection, he stated a post office will reject if prepared
incorrectly (verification not accepted) which is generally the lack of communication
between a business and post office or a secretary fasnilias- with the process leaves the
company. Large bulls users shop around. Dan Olson volunteered to follow-up with John
Bondhus as mail delivery comments were expressed during the BRE visit.
~. Discussion on and to continue development of a list of potential tasks to accomplish the
goal of the IDC: To provide a continuous stream of available industrial land with
infrastructure potential.
A. Review the draft copy of the February 4, 2003 Planning Commission Agenda for
industrial related items. Discuss and vote on an IDC position or action if
necessary. Koropchak noted two items were added to the hlanning Commission
agenda since the IDC agenda mailing. O'Neill reviewed each agenda item. With
no related industrial agenda item, no action or position was necessary or taken by
the IDC.
B. Review list of tasks established and needed to accomplish the IDC Mission
Statement as prepared by Van Allen. Van Allen presented a list of recommended
actions to assist in accomplishing the IDC Mission Statement. He requested
copies be make and mailed in the March IDC agenda packet for members to
review for discussion in March. O'Neill made an observation of the IDC stating
the IDC has consistently been in opposition rather than being a cheerleader for
industrial development. I-Ie felt the IDC's narrow view of the Comp Plan
weakened its team effort. He suggested embracing the Comp Plan as adopted and
let it run for a while. The IDC should be an advocate and sell Monticello. Barger
felt the BRE visits promoted the City.
2
IDC Minutes - 2/4/03
6. Follow-up of request to discuss the City of Monticello Community Vision & Governing
Policies. Van Allenl
Lynne reported that she and Barger had attended the Council special meeting of January
24 when council members reviewed the Vision & Governing Policies and noted their
priority projects. Lynne and Barger were both pleased to hear two council members
promote industrial growth. Conmmission members were asked to review the Vision &
Governing Policies and develop and rank goals or projects by March 24. O'Neill noted
that the Vision & Governing Policies had not been reviewed for a few years as Belsaas'
style was to stabilize or one of maintenance where Thielen's style is leadership. No
action or discussion by the IDC.
7. Reports:
A. BRE Visit Reports -Double Bull Archery - Olson/Koropchak Double Bull's 35%
growth increase was noted and it was suggested to keep in touch with the
company as their leases expire.
B. Economic Development Report - In addition to the written report, Koropchak
informed members that Remmele Engineering is closing their doors within six
months, the H-Window closing date of January 29, 2003 did not take place, and a
lead for 150,000 sq ft of distribution space on 12 acres with 5 acres for storage.
With the scheduled BRE visit set for February 1 i at L30 p.m. with Suburban and
Vector Tool and Koropchak unable to attend, volunteers were requested. It was
suggested to re-schedule. Lastly, Koropchak informed members that the EDA
reviewed the GMEF Guidelines for business/job retention. Although the EDA
could legally amend the Guidelines to meet the Business Subsidy Criteria -Public
Purpose Requirement: Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases
where job loss is imminent and demonstrable. The Attorney warned the EDA that
this may be a red flag. EDA members agreed that automatization requires more
employees and made a motion to not amend the EDA Business Subsidy Criteria
for the purpose of job retention. Chair Barger vohmteered to relay the outcome to
R & B Metal Stamping.
C. Marketing Subcommittee Report -Lynne Dahl reported Huxford, Brad Barger,
Darrin Lahr, Koropchak and she had met anal they agreed to participate at the
Chamber Golf Outing, May 15. They elected to provide gratis golf tickets to
developers, contractors, etc. and not to sponsor a tour or prior informational event
because of a lack of attendance by the targeted audience. After assessing the
previous Market Plan, certain items were identif ed to carry-out.
8. Updates by Mayor Thielen and O'Neill.
A. Pi°ogress on annexation requests. O'Neill informed members that Wolfsteller,
Thielen, Stumpf, township representative(s), and himself met the previous day to
establish better cooperation between the borders. Thielen and Stumpf taking a
global and progressive approach for the township and city to bring the
<~overnments togethei° in order to develop a new agreement for land outside the
MOAA but within the township and under the county. Currently, 300 acres of
IDC Minutes - 2/4/03
residential land has been approved for annexation with another 400 acres staged
for annexation within the next few years. Thielen and Stumpf building bridges.
It was suggested to change the name MOAA to defuse the negative association.
B. Status of the Council recommendation to establish a task force for implementation
of the Comp Plan. O'Neill informed members that staff/consultants met with.
both the NMC and Xcel representatives relative to the northwest corridor
development and interchange. Security is a concern for the plant and some
chemicals used in manufacturing process would be a concern. NMC/Xcel to
develop of list of manufacturers as potential hazardous chemical users. The
Interchange 94 and 18 task force developing a funding program. Ready Mix not
an obstacle. Preliminary discussion are that MDOT may increase distant between
interchanges to greater than one mile for rural areas.
9. Other Business. None.
10. Adjournment.
The IDC meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
Recorder
•
4
l~ (~
r~
BRE VISIT TO TWIN CITY DIECAST
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Submitted by Mike Benedetto
Ollie and I visited Twin City Die Cast on Wednesday afternoon, February 12, 2003. We
met with Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Doug Harmon.
Twin City Die Cast has been in Monticello for the past three years. They are a company
who utilizes magnesium in their die cast instead of aluminum. Magnesium is a lighter
product and has applications in aircraft and auto manufacturing, as well as in the medical
field. It is becoming more desirable than aluminum primarily because of its light weight
for manufacturing parts. The magnesium alloy is 40% lighter than aluminum and can
absorb vibration much better than aluminum. Magnesium is derived from salt water and
mined in Canada.
Twin City Die Cast has been in business for 65 years. The company has two other plants,
one in Minneapolis and one in Watertown, South Dakota. According to Doug, if any of
the three plants have an expansion, it is very likely that the Monticello plant will be
targeted since they are no where near maximizing their current space and have plenty of
space for expansion. Doug also mentioned that there are 18 magnesium die casters in
North America.
Doug did discuss the fact that magnesium is a flammable element but I quoted him as
saying "it is one of the safest plants in the world". The Monticello plant appeared very
clean and well organized and this is, obviously, one of the reasons for its high safety
record. The plant needs to be clean to prevent any combustion.
Like many businesses, the plant volume is down a little but they seem optimistic about
the future of their business. Doug was very positive about the relationship with
Monticello and the city. He was very complimentary towards Ollie in terms of her
keeping relationships open and businesses well informed. There were some difficulties
and setbacks initially when the plant was being constructed, relative to discussions with
city staff, but that has all been improved upon. Currently, Doug doesn't have any
negative issues that were of concern to him or any major disappointments.
Doug mentioned that he felt Monticello was a great location for his company and that he
was glad to be here.
•
BRE VISIT
SCHEDULE AND WRITTEN SUMMARY FORM
•
IDC MEMBER
Name Mike Benede o/ ro ch
Phone
FAX
E-Mail
Mailing Address
Date of Visit February 12, 2003
Concluded about 3:00 p.m.
Summary of Visit:
Web Site tcdcinc.com
L
INDUSTRY
Name Twin City Die Castings Company
Primary Contact Doug Harmon. Vice Pres.
Phone 651-645-3611
E-Mail
Location 520 Chelsea Road
Monticello. MN 55362
FAX
Time of Visit 2:00 p.m.
Mike Benedetto informed Doug of the purpose of the BRE visit and the role of the IDC.
I . Doug reported TCDC has a good working relationship with Ollie and the city.
2. They have no concerns. Recently, TCDC has asked the Building Department about city
requirements to complete the office mezzanine area. Prior to construction of the initial
magnesium plant. TCDC was unaware of building code requirements for construction of a
magnesium facility which did add additional costs to the project. They like being in Monticello
and today have one of the safest magnesium facility in the world.
3. Overall company production is slow. Monticello Plant Manager Grea Hansen is now in sales
and Ed George serves as the Plant Manager.
4. Overall their volume is down 20%. Plans are to expand the Monticello plant in the future as
they foresee 70% gro~~rth in the area of automobile application: instniment panels and steering
wheels. Magnesium reduces vibration and improves safety because it is ductile. Other uses are
in communication and medical. Their magnesium is produced in Canada.
~. Doug noted the need for Carol Pressley-Olson and Koropchak to meet two months prior to t11e
June/July job reporting date for the State/City loan. The company hires temps which does not
qualify as permanent job creation.
6. Appreciated the visit and information provided.
•
t
n
4B. Executive Director's Report.
IDC Agenda - 3/4/03
a) UMC Loan Closings -The State/City and EDA real estate loans closed February 20.
The company expects to have the building enclosed by February 28 with an occupancy
date in July. Don Tomann and I plan to have lunch this week.
b) Kaltec of Minnesota, Inc. - In talking with Jason Kallevig, Plant Manager, the
company has relocated their entire operations and headquarters to the Monticello facility.
Previously, they leased in Plymouth. They currently lease a major portion of the Fay-
Mar building. I have arranged for the IDC and Chamber Board to tour the facility at 307
Chelsea Road on Friday, March 14, 3:00 p.m. Does this work for you?
c) Production Stamping, Inc. - No news from Les Wurm on final decision to purchase or
build.
d) Attended the breakfast, January 30, at Sunny Fresh honoring Congressman Mark
Kennedy who received an award from the National Association of Manufacturing.
e) About 65 people attended the first seminar sponsored by the Wright County Economic
Development Partnership entitled "Development Issues & Solutions". Four individuals
were on the panel representing the following areas: Developer, Planner Consultant,
Builder, and City Administrator.
1. Suggest cities update and simplify (clarify) ordinances/rules to support comp
plan.
2. Consistent application of city ordinances/rules.
3. Don't waste developer's time with revisions. Be up front, state if not
interested. Developers appreciate this, saves time and money.
4. Provide developers, up-front, estimated city fees. In order to provide
community amenities, cities must increase fees.
5. Inform developers of City Vision and/or Comp Plan. Cities stick to adopted
Comp Plan or Vision.
6. Because of the high cost and importance of redevelopment, cities need to look
for ways to create public/private partnerships.
7. Development in Wright County is expected to change within the next 3-5
years due the shift in demographics. Investors/developers now see an exist (resale
potential).
8. Most harmful to a city is the indecision of whether or not to develop/own
industrial land. Either way works, private or public.
Next series, Wednesday, March 19, 1 I :30 a.m., at Silver Springs Golf Course.
f) Koropchak was one of four ``Outstanding Women in Government" honored at the State
Women of Today Banquet held at the Double Tree Park Place Hotel on February 22.
Other honoree were MN Secretary of State Mary Kiffineyer, Anoka Mayor Lonni
McCauley, State Senator Sheila Kiscaden of Rochester. Kiffineyer was selected
Outstanding Woman in Government for 2003. Was a very special event.
•
Ui C
• Summary
IDC Membership Committee
February 28, 2003
Present: Tom Lindquist, Dan Olson, and Koropchak
Absent: Mary Barger
Subject: Township representative on the IDC
Background: The IDC was interested in township representation for the purpose of building
relationship with the township. Smith previously attempt to recruit a township
representative was unsuccessful. As of late, Benedetteo attempted to recruit Bill
Young, a township board member. Young declined. Item was referred to
Membership Committee by the IDC.
Conclusion: The Committee on February 28, concluded: Since the IDC objective was to
recruit a representative active in the political scene and with the decline of Young,
it was the feeling the remaining political representatives may act in opposition.
Secondly, anon-political individual was viewed as anon-active representative.
Thirdly, with the approach of the newly elected council to work with the township
and draft a new agreement, perhaps a wait and see approach is best. Fourthly, the
IDC is not short of members, now has twelve members.
•
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday -March 4, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragster and Lloyd Hilgart
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 February 4, 2003.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a special home occupation permit allowing a
photographic studio in a residential district. Applicant: Wayne & Patricia Mayer
6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a shopping
center and joint parking in a B-3 district. Applicant: Michael Krutzig
7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development
approval allowing 8 single family units in a proposed R-2A district. Applicant: Tom
Holthaus
8. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit develo ment
approval for a mixed use development including residential, commercial an industrial.
Applicant: Gold Nugget Development Inc.
9. Public Hearing -Consideration of amendments to the district boiuldary map identified in the
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello
10. Consideration of approving sign plan associated with Home Depot development stage PUD
request.
1 I . Consideration of filling the vacant position on the Planning Commission.
12. Consideration of providing input on goals and projects for the City.
13. Adjourn
. did,
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday -March 4, 2003
6:00 P.M.
.~ Members: Dick Frie. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd Hilgart
Council Liaison: Brian Stumpf
Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held February 4, 2003.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a special home occupation permit allowing a
photographic studio in a residential district. Applicant: Wayne & Patricia Mayer
6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a shoppin~~
center and joint parking in a B-3 district. Applicant: Michael Krutzig
7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development
approval allowing 8 single family units in a proposed R-2A district. `Applicant:-~'om
Holthaus
8. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit development
approval for a mired use development including residential, commercial and industrial.
Applicant: Gold Nugget Development Inc.
9. Public Hearing -Consideration of amendments to the district boundary map identified in the
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello. (Open public hearing and
continue to the April meeting for review by full membership of the Planning Commission).
10. Consideration of setting special meeting date to conduct interviews for the vacant position
on the Planning Commission.
11. Consideration of providing input on goals and projects for the City. This subject to be
discussed at the special Planning Commission meeting when interviews are being
conducted.
12. Adjourn
rLJ
Planning Commission Agenda - 0/04/04
g. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for~a'concept'sta~e planned unit=
development approval for a mixed use development includm~ residential,
commercial and industrial uses Applicant: Gotd Nu~~et Development Inc.
,,...y .,... ,. a .. _:
::Yz~,gEFRENCEAND BACKGROUND-' x~±~~rz c:r~F~;t. ,+;~. a ~~.t~3.~zr4t.~'.> .~a; c•~ f . frt,.~
.Gold Nugget is a 220 acre site located directly south Fof the Kjellberg East trailer~park, ` ~ "
abutting Highway 25 to;the West; 85 Street to the south, and County Road 117 to the
east: `The site which is in'the'process`6f being°annexed; intdthe city: is`beirig`proposed as
s,.
a multi-use projecf,•consisting'of-150 acres'of~residenti'al r~IO ai res of cominereial,*~and 60 r ~ ,.
~ ' ~.. g :,.• t y~ ~ . , f 9~ g ` raI Open' Space, and •<• - _,
~~1~"acres.bf Ii 1~it•indusmal° 'I'hz site is'eurrentl'szonec~ ~=0 A neulfu
a rezone will need to be` approved prior tepo -final plat t~. "i ° ' ' ~ ~ ' ' ` ~, '
. -~,j's >~ ~~ «I+ "tr fYT.. by ~'Ii ,~;!Y 91'r ~ ~ ,
The, Gold Nugget site has a history that reaches back"'seve`ral years }~"Plans"were' submitted
for this site in 1998, however the applicant was forced to await a resolution between City
representatives on the MOAA and the majority of the City Council concerning"the use of -.
' , . g s Y P , ~ futu - .
the-site. The Orderl Annexatiori Board mcludin the Cit re re Y ntatives on the board,
y
preferred the `site for `strictly industrial development while the Cat s re land use plan
designated the site for low density single family residential development. 'A compromise
was reached at the City level when the Comp Plan was updated, where it was decided
that a seventy acre portion abutting highway 25 would be reserved for light industrial and
commercial while the remainder of the site would be low density single family `'"-
residential. • - ' `
The site is proposed to be developed in phases, with the 150 acres of residential area
being developed first. A Planned Unit Development overlay is being proposed in order
to allow three types of residential uses. The make up of these uses are as follows; 170
single family detached homes at the central and eastern portion of the site; 68 quad homes
at the central and western portion of the site, and 123 row homes Iocated at the northern
portion of the site, abutting the trailer homes. A total of 370 dwelling units are proposed
and the residential portion of the site consists of approximately 17 acres of park land, 12
acres of ponding,'~and 7 acres of easement;"(including 85`" street and county road 117
right-of--way), giving the project a total density of 3.2 units per net acre and 2.5 units per
gross acre. The remainder of the site will include 60 acres of I-lA industrial abutting
Highway 25 and 10 acres of B-2 (neighborhood) commercial area along the southwest
corner of the project area.
r the residential site reflects the City's future land
Land Use.( The 1"and use proposed fo f "
use and Comprehensive Plan for the area, which has been the subject of numerous
discussions between the City, the Township, and the developer. The land use plan
designation for this area is low density residential. Attached housing is a possible
development style under a PUD arrangement, subject to the overall density'staying within
the permitted 3 units per net developable acre and 4 units per gross acre. The proposed
•
i ' ` - ' Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/04
_ ~
project has managed to stay within the density requirements, regardless that a majority of `
the units are to be,attached units This can. be attributed to~a few thin =s mcludin 7 what
__
__.
+li 3 ~t'4~ `i6~+l1 ~{~ ' 3z. ~,~4. t ~-~~s~ iFdn^.;3#`~r ,s"~`` T"~f #a 4 *" ~ i ~ . ~ ,
appears to be a number of larger than normal lots.M The applicant is requesting a PUD
overlay, which gives some flexibility in overall design and performance standards,
however the Planning Commission must decide if designating a majority of the housing
.._
units; :for attached housing is inconsistent with the City's plan for the residential portion of
,.
this site ~_ i , :,, ~ ~; .
~ e,
f c
+~T~1" , ~7ts" t `rf i "~ ~ '~~ '~ ~~~~
z {_.}!+ r~; :z~~f e t ~ ~•~ t`~ ,,rai 4 i? t r °°~. ~r fa~ :~}~ ~•t(,t'l~ti
_ j ;.r;; -,The land pattern being proposed for;theremainder of the site includes a IO acre area
~~~ bn~;designated for.B-2;zoning,~Limited Bus~ness,~and 6Q acresofI-lA~zoning, Light ~; "
,:
" ~ r;r, ,`;Industrial wIt~shoulct be'noted •that;at;th~~request for;rezoriing,~a~pubIic;hearirg should be'
.. --
requested by the land owner to, amend the future land use plan to designate this as a
• commercial area. With this amendment, the proposed project will be reflective of the
~,~, ~, r ~;Cit 's ro osed attern for use in this'area. " ~ ~ ~ ~ f
Y._P .P.. P..
.. , _ ..,.
_.. - .
,•, ,~, _,
~~ Commercal•Growth Area Bo'ugda,ry. ,,;As previously noted,;the inclusion.
•`'• ~ - ~ of the 10
~ ,acre,commercial area requires an,amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use~Plan. The
-" purpose of this distinction is limit. the lineal commercial development south along
,, ..Highway 25. ~ ,r
The. Plamm~g~Commission may. want to~reduce the"s ~ ~~~ '~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ` •
" commercial acreage and lima. uses to
neighborhood commercial and restrict highway commercial uses. These restrictions
-could naturally result in a reduction in land for commercial uses at this location.•~ ~w
„ Site/Lot Design. It is important to plan for this projects future connection to
.surrounding sites. ,There is an approximate 4.5 acre piece of land at the northwest corner
of the Edmonson Avenue and 85` .Street intersection, which is not owned by the
applicant. The applicant should Ghost, Plat this property, showing its ability to connect to
the proposed development in a reasonable manner.
The single family lot design for~this site~appeai-s to meet the~standards as described in the
:~ Subdivision Ordinance:; One problem however is the design of lots l 63 through 170, in
..particular lot 166. ,This is an irregular lot, often referred in Subdivision Ordinances as a
" "Butt, Lot'', in that it is located between two corner lots and is surrounded by rear~yards.
- This area should be redesigned to eliminate any irregular lots. -The site design should
avoid the need for temporary dead end connections, such as the right-of--way fronting lots
4 and 5. Lots 4 and 5 should be turned in the same manner as lots 2 and 3. Also, lot lines
_ ,should not stop at the ponds, but. should run through them on the plat, ,~;r i F ,~,:.
,~ ._ ~ . ,.
Staff has some concerns with the depth of the Industrial areas, in r
subdivided, as well as the amount of ondma egards~to how it will be
p b located wrthm the industrial/commercial
area. ;The ponding that is within the 70 acre industrial/commercial area should exist to
supportand handle that site and not to support the residential development.
•
~.~_ . ;~
__ ., ,~r_ :. s ,._.,x. ~
y.~~
~
,
.
;
~
~
...~. ~.
. _ ~ .:~~~,., ..~ ,. _
m .
y..
.,:_. ~ -LL ~_ ,. x.. s,<, ;,~;,..i~ Planning Commission A~~ '
• _enda - 0/04/04 '
Buffering. The proposed project is using both large ponding areas and higher density
attached dwellings as a transition between the`'industrial,~co'mmeicalrand mobile home
park uses to the north and west and the Iow density residential area. to the east. , AIthough
"this buffering technique does works staff does want to' iterate th'ai' other alternatives such
%~=~:-gas large berms; :fencirig;•aiid.thickly'planted landscaping;"car be'"iised fogscreen the uses
.:~ '::, both yisuaIly and'audibly rather` than using such' a Iarge"portion of the sife`for attached
-~ .Circulation ~,~-Aeeess.•~ ~ ~The`residential-portion of the site~shows~hvo'access points off of -
.. .
County:Road 1~Z~to the east; two~access poi'nts'to the~'south'off"of 8~~'iSti~eet`and an
access to the west connecting the residential portion with the future, industrial and .
- commercial uses. •-The applicant will need permission ,from the county for the access
points onto County Road 117. Approval by MnDOT'wi~l•be~needed"`for~the acces's off of
..Highway 25, and some right.-of-way may be needed for the realignment of the
~.; > ;, intersection at 85`"-•Street and-Highway 25.'~It should`also be`noted iIiaffurids will be
requested forthe reconstruction of both'Edmonson and 85`h'street'.~ #~~'=`}' ''" r'
- housing, which is not generally congruent with low density` sirigle~-fjaniil~r"development.
- ~~ T~Staff,is generally comfortable with the meandering'street pattern thiouahout the project.
<~ Staff.would prefer a'`70 foot"right of-way throughout the project o=allow-for the
~- construction of a 36 foot street with sidewalk on each side. ~_The two most westerly cut-
<," de-sacs exceed the maximum allowable 600 foot~length'for`a cul=de'sac'as'described in
{ahe City's_Subdivision Regulations;`'-Chapter t1iSection 5 3(B};<CuI-de=sacs~areonly
::permitted wheretopography justifies there use,'therefore'the applicarit'shoiiId'redesign
the site to connect these cul-de-sacs with the street system as well as connect-the two
most easterly cul-de-sacs with each other in a loop design. -
Staff would like the applicant to look into redesigning the quad home section in a manner
that would eliminate the need for the stubbed access drives. If this isn't possible,
turnarounds will be required. _ , .; '~ }.
.... ... .. .. ~ .. ~ ~ . rf is ' 1 ..
Trail /Parks. The general park concept is consistent with the concept plan approved
late in 1998. !The plans show an approximatel7 acre linear park and trail connection
running north and south,-through the center of the site.;The subdivision ordinance
requires that 10% of the final plats gross area be dedicated for park use. In this case, the
dedicated amount exceeds the i 5 acres required. The trail will need to be evaluated by
the parks commission as to its connection to other locations, both inside and outside of
the project area. Staff would suggest that the park and trail run along the southern
portion of the most northern pond rather than along the north side of the pond abutting
the trailer park as shown. Staff would also like the site plan to illustrate an east/west
connection from the currently shown termination of the trail along 85`h Street and the
proposed extension of Cedar Street to the west. The parks commission has been looking
for area to develop a larger, active park with ballfields. The park land along 85`h Street
may be suitable for this purpose. The Parks Commission will want to take into account
soil types and water conditions when considering if the area dedicated is suitable for park
and trail use. -
3
S
-.- 1~
,r,• , ,,; , y..; ,;; _ Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/04
~~
AT
A
B.
ALTERN
IVE
CTIONS
.1. .•,yMotion to recgmmend approval of the Concept Plan for the Gold Nugget PUD,
w~:,,, ~~~, .,,,-~~yyith comments,to.be"noted,-basedon a finding that ht project is consistent with
~~~~,,~,~ ~,,;ithe~Cit~!,s~fut}~,~e,,land tee plan~:otion,~ontingent on. review and approval of the
,- ~- ~park;plan by the Parks Comniission;~;t~~;°.f 1~~~,,rt ,. ;: Y ~.
.~~i1~~ ~}t~~~~i s.~ _ ~ ~,._ reJ __. ..,
~? ,< <f ~ Motion to recommend •denial,o~ the ,concept _Plan, based on a finding that the
Comprehensve Plan and is premature for
n~ Is~~ t~:.pro~ecth~s not consistent witl~~the. '
A
_ - ~KS~~ sL;"develogment a~th;s~me~~~t},~it~;~~i~~i ,,~~.;~~~~.:a~~;..,.~ .._.r w,' _. <..._ .
r.a,~~ar; ~dt ~'~.~'ti+t~$c't l~fa~r ~~rr~~rlrr~~,~~ ;watt C~i:a~~~:~t~tzrn
C.
wSTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ;:-
,
:
': ;
;
., :: .
: -
,
~
.
.
;
,
.
~
1
~ •
~
,The conce lan review s;~ a Plannin
and
Cit Co
Commission
uncil's opportunity to
provide feedback to,the'developer`regarding awide variety of issues prior to the
preparation of a detailed development proposal. Issues may include more detailed design
,:~ concerns,that the City,may believe are critical to further consideration of the project, or
may also be~;re~ated,to•niore general land use-.and development planning: including the
A
• ..staging or,direction of future,City
growth.~J"As with any PUD, the City should be able to
jai ,,,identify the ~angibleradvantages that PUD. zoning flexibility offers. Staff does not offer a
.iA;apecifc,recommendation•at concept stage, except to raise issues that may impact the
City s consideration of a pro~ect,.or conditions that the developer should expect to see if
,the project,proceeds further:. ,_~, ,~~~t; ,. ; ,, , :, w.... .,, _ • _ .~:
Items that the Planning Commission should focus on in their discussion should include,
.but not belimited to, the following:
• Ratio of single family to townhouse development. Is density acceptable?
• Is the size of commercial area acceptable? Should uses be restricted to
.neighborhood uses? - -: • :; ~ ; _: ,~,. , :.. , , ,
• .Discuss site amenities or `.`extras"justifying the use of PUD. What are the
,. attributes that make this project"superior to a standard subdivision?
D~ -SUPPORTING DATA' ~ ••, _,:~ _ "
Exhibit A:. Site Location Map ..~ .. •~
.. ExhibitB ..~SitePlan a ,~ .~,~ +:>~,t ~;.,,.t.,
Exhibit C: :::.:.Future Land Use Map - . t _ ~ ~ ;~ - .. ~ - ~ .
4 _ .
LOCATION MAP
NO SCALE
•~ ---
1 y
l V \
n \'
<,
~., ~~.
~ ~~
n \~
.!- < ~,~
J
--7--- --T i - -- --~
II /
i I ~ nil
I ~~/ I I .rte I
--~ C' r------ ----------~ I ~-------
~ I I r ~ 86TH STREET ICI ~
I ~I I ~' I ~ III ~~ I
~ I I ~ ~ ~~ I C I ~~ ~
' ~I ~~ ' ~ I'I ~
I ~~,~~ I ~-~,,~ III ~-~~~
1 I
~ I-JI ; -J I; i ~ J
--~-L-L-- --~-- -- ---+~L- -- --~
SECTION 22
SECTION 23
TOWNSHIP 121 N, RANGE 25 W
/~
/~
~P ~/
~h~/
MONTICELLO
LONG RAIITGE LAND USE
Low Density Residential
Expansion Area
Low Denaity Residential (R-1)
Low Density Residential (R-1A)
Medium Density (attached hsg.)
Urban Mixed-Use
- Commercial
- Industrial
Open Space
Mobile Home Park
'~ _ .;
Future Land Use Objectives:
* Allow for a mix of land uses
* Preserve and protect natural resourlces
* Provide road system to support growth
* Retain rural character and a small town feel
* Use existing amenities (i.e. v/ews, lakes, tr~ses)
to enhance development
* Prevent sprawl by encouraging compact
development pattern
~~ ..
1
r"
a .r
~
~ ~
;~
~ ~ ~%/ ~
8 =
~,
~ /f '~
~~/i
'
.
/~~~ d
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O°
O~
O
O
O,
O
~~
c-
p°
a
a
(Lt
QV02!_ A1Nf10~) - -- - - -- - - -- - 1SY3H1MON 3f1N3gY I I
- - - -- - - •_-.~.___ - - NOSNOIYQ3 _ _ _ _ ~ I
-- --- -- ---------- --~ ---- N ---------------~ 1
~ ~ I I
8 ~ i I
I I
I I
~ ~ s I i
~ I 1
a ~ I I
x I I
.~ .-,~,..„- I I
S I I
~ Y S ~ (
I I
R I I
I I
I I
~ ~ I
s ~ ~~ I
~ ~ _ I
I
~ } }
- ~ I
I
I
~ I
~ ~i I
s ~ I
- = - ~
J O
¢w g
N U
~ Q
~ O
Z ~p
R
\I I
I I
I I~
~ I I<
I I'''
\\ I la
I IZ
~\ i i
\~~ I I
~ \,.I I
~ \ `I IW
\~
~~ ~ iN
I ,
I ,
:I,
III
~~ I~
I I~
I I
I I
i ~
~ I
\t
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \ SZ
\ \~H
\
\
~'^
O
17SE~iK ~ 3 Y OpO x~
tt. 00. W
W
X
~ \ ~~iJ'L,
\~~7
K
~ O
^ ~ m \ _1
\ Q
~I Z
a < ~ .. \ \ U N
i
~ ^t 0
+1 ao v \\ ~ Q
Qpn~~ w \ ~ U .- i
to ~~ ~~ ~ „
\
Nv
v
F ~ \\ .~
.~
~
\
~ o ~ ~ o° \ fi
~
J fll y`j tp ~ ~ ~ L
3
~ \
..
s 2 W
~ ~
_ ~ ~ ..~~
J
~
W ~ ~ <a ~~ I
1
I
i
(~
O~
Jc
W
Ufa
F
z
0
V
a
V
Z
~ai
k~
NW
U
z
0
v
W 4-1
rF
o ~ y i
8
~~
c~
3
a
E
#jt
L~p~
¢;!
a
~~•
~~a
his
~2
i
1
I
t
i
~ i
I
I
i
,
1
s ~!
~~
~~*
;a6,*
• • ~
~ ~ _ - -
S ~.
Recommended additional actions for the Industrial Development Committee.
Respectfully submitted - Richard Van Allen- 3 February 2003
Objective: To maintain and increase the industrial tax base and to create jobs in the
City of Monticello, Minnesota
1. Develop~good working liaison, including direct communication, appearances
= -and presentations before and to:
• Ciry Council
• Ciry Staff
• Planning Commission
2. Be willing to share our views on:
• Use of the funds already set aside for purchase of Industrial Property
• Industrial Planning
• Willingness to provide participants for implementation of the Comp plan
implementation
3. Continue independent evaluation of usefulness of property designated
"Industrial" on the current Comp Plan .
4. Monitor and evaluate changes made through PUD use and changes to property
designated "Industrial" on the Comp Plan .
S- Through BRE visits continue collection of information relevant to industrial
.development and retention needs.
,--
N
.~'.
~-
.~
~--~
4.)
O 0
~ ~ ~
~~ C~ ~
.
~ ~
~
-'
•~ ,~
~~ ~
~ 0 ~~
0 ~
~
4J
~
O U
. ,_..,
•~
' ~
O ~ -~ ~ O
c~ ~ U
~
~ 4-~
O
~
.,
~ ~ ~
~ ~
N ~ ~
~
~ ~
O
O
c~
4J
O ~'
w q
SITE SELECTION Workshop
By Bruce Maus and
Annual DTED Conference 1 I-08-02
I. Why Companies move:
A. Market opportunities
B. Labor Market Constraints
C. Corporate Change
D. Need to be Close to customers
E. Other company factors
F. Cost Containment
II. Ho w Companies make the decision to find another Site
A. Decision to locate can involve people from several organizations
B. Decision depends on several policies within company:
1. Corporate Strategic plan; operational & RE strategic plan; facilities & site strategic plan;
2. and who is involved in the implementation of the process.
C. Geographic Decision is usually made before we hear about the company interested in our region.
D. Site Selection Experts are hired who:
1. Research using Internet & local government agencies (i.e. use MNCAR & MNPRO).
E. Exit Strategy usually part of decision, because change happens so fast, the company may want to sell
in a few years.
1. Invest in facility with a recovery plan.
2. Best sites have flexibility, re-use & are resaleable.
111. The new paradigm
A. Corporation Location Trends
i. Process technology
ii. Reduce costs
iii. Availability of a trainable workforce
iv. Smaller communities in rural towns becoming increasingly more popular:
a. better work ethic
b. lower costs
c. cheaper land (real estate)
d. telecommunications in rural has increased in quality.
B. Location Decisions are made faster than ever:
1. The world wants things better, faster, and cheaper
2. Business has to move at the speed of communication
C. Understand the forces driving business decisions today.
IV. Key Issues
A. Customers, suppliers, workforce
B. Transportation
C. Site/ Building Issues
D. Utility
E. Operational Costs
F. Environmentallssues:
1. Do Phase 1 Assessments search to make site more competitive.
2. Provide complete sewer & water maps.
G. Subjective Criteria:
I. Business climate
?. Quality of life
3. Proximity to other operations and senior management.
V. Examples of Information ~~iven and requested:
A. An RFP will probably start out saying that they need a 50,000 sq. ft bldg, they will have 50 employees,
and they need ~ acres of land with services.
• B. The information they will need will be:
1. What services are at the site in question
2. What are the costs of the services
3. What is the costs of the land and/ or buildings.
4. What wage data can you provide for the lists of job profiles in question
5. Include a community profile (as DTED's MNPRO suggests).
6. Include aerial photos or maps showing site location.
7. Include a site plan with all utilities present at that site.
8. Include a lists of incentives available.
9. Give clients what they ask for!
C. i
Vl. Ho w a community can improve its chances:
A. Pro vide information as requested in an efficient and accurate manner:
I . For first request for information, provide answers on one sheet. If attachments are necessary
reference them from the cover sheet.
2. Have thorough knowledge of your community.
3. F{ave an updated database for your community.
4. Provide a thorough and accurate utility list of costs and availability
5. Provide current labor market statistics.
6. Does the community have enough affordable and available housing?
7. Is the website easy to find.
8. Provide a prompt response to requests for information.
9. Quickly an~ange for visits with community and company leaders.
10. Regard all information and communication with professional confidentiality.
I I . Be creative!
B. Do n't try to teach the prospect about Economic Development:
I . Give clients what they ask for!
2. Anoka has developed a system whereby the various economic development strategies are not so
apparent If a TIF is used, all the prospect sees is the bottom line. Prospects don't have to go through
the approval process.
C. Cor porations Top Ten List
I . Labor Costs
. 2. Transportation Costs
3. Taxation Costs (Assessed Values).
~1. Labor Quality & Quantity.
>. Speed to Market
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure
i. Can make or break a project
7. Access =various transportation modes
8. INCENTIVES
9. Customer perception of area -IMAGE
i. First impressions important
ii. A community should `'play up" to what it is famous for.
10. Local Leadership attitude Towards the Projects
Vll. Ex ampl es of Recent Site Selection Processes:
A. Arctic Cat
1. "I~hey listed their Site Selection Criteria
i. They needed a National distribution center that would allow them to reduce their average
receive the order to shipping time from the current 7 days out of Thief River Falls.
ii. They knew the world had to have it better, faster, and cheaper
iii. They needed a place where they could grow to 400,000 sq. ft. that would be close to a
major UPS or Fed Ex Hub.
2. Final selection choice came down to Indiana or Ohio.
3. They picked Buesyrus, Ohio because the land costs were reasonable, the labor competitively
priced, and they had a good exit strategy there.
B. Lan d O'Lakes Food Plant
(. They listed their Site Selection Criteria, and sent out a RFP
2. Jackson County won the competition, because they could provide utility costs at the most
competition rate with a ten year guarantee.