The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 02-02-1999 . Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99 completion of the annexation of the property into the City of Monticello. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on findings that the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends a more intense residential land use, and does not support the addition of significant levels oflower valued housing, given the current housing mix in the community. 3. Motion to table action on the rezoning, subject to the submission of additional information. Decision 2: Consideration of Annexation to the City of Monticello 1. Motion to recommend approval of the annexation, based upon a finding that the site plan meets the intent of the R-4 District, and that the land use and contiguity requirements of the MOAA agreement are met. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the annexation, based upon a finding that the site plan does not meet the intent of the R-4 District, that the plan does not accommodate transportation needs in the area, and that the land use is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the area. . 3. Motion to table action on the annexation, subject to the submission of additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDA TlON Staff does not recommend approval of the rezoning or annexation at this time. As noted in this report, the land use plans prepared for this area recommend a different style and density of residential land use, and point out the transportation problems associated with the development as planned. Without consistency in the land use, the area should not be annexed due to the standards of the MOAA agreement, which are intended to ensure that land will be developed in a specific land use pattern, and that full development will occur within three years for any parcel annexed. Approving annexation without firm and consistent land use plans would raise concerns about the ability to accommodate future annexation and growth needs of the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Area Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Site Area & Alternative Road Alignment . -4- ~- ,~,. .. \ --......" . . '_nv' C., ;. . ~I --- T ~ ',' ~ t>. fI" .."-~---~- .- \ Y--"- . --~=--- -' ! ~' I~ _ .~+--:-;. ,~ ". ~m~ _ IS:=;. ; '" .t?- - .~.::::: ~" I ',,-. . q I / "'. - ", ~" - I~- j - i~' . -~ l' """'^.. K 'f ~ .~~ --<- i ~~~i) ~. --1---- ~. _-" . J;1 I I . ..,'1 I ~(l';:Sr/N4 ~" -:~_' -.:....~""--.-.-l ~~ f ,I ~ '-\... " I 1.1_,.,..., I .- ..,.t., . -,I .....::::....:....... I . '? \. \,.VQa"-V- V,- . ......., , . W~ /--t_~,~ 0-~__ 1/. I! _<......"0: -; . I . 21 . _....' ! . - 'J. ....iII..... .' I I I I I I I I I ~-I- - .- --;/ -- -t. -- ---/- - I I I I I I ___ _____-____'1 i I ------... . \a/\ Exhibit A - Area Location . .1 f-- r i ~ I~' ~ f-- I) ~~ ~~ ~ , ~ I" ~ 11). ~ - S , ~ ... -- ,~ \. 1" , .. , " . . - i'b~ r.;> ~ rH . ~lJ ~..~~. ,r. ~ ~ \} Ol.n~ ~~{~ ! ~ \ n~ ~ \ . ~ ~ J : ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ . ..p . "\ t " ~ ~ ~\ i~ ~ ? l'!>t r ~ tr ; ~ a. ~h & .. t t ~ ~~ ~ ." .. ~ ~ ~"O ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ... 'Ii I} . ..I' I ~"" ../,' I N8S.'4'Or w ,~ .'} \ ~<II , ~ '11' I I, t / '"' ~,," ~ \ {...",'" , / .// \ '" r ~/.. 1~/oP',' " ~,.. ..."'././ , I \ r:: ,/ /.~ .. \_/~ /:. /' /ri . I: ./ 'A#'~"",.~//' ,/ / /' lI, l~ ~- ~(~"'<9' / ",'. /1:"... \ I 'i.,').';;i,v'.v' , '!, '. \ ~~? '. . "''''''''-' ~ ,', / ." ", \ ,} . J , ",,' II \' I .c: iflWrl~IJrMJf"'~FHt , "").". \, ~ ~O... \,~I~I'I6'..t..l~ __'\ \,y... o"/...y''''''''' ;' ,,)/)/ -~-.,~ ..".....,.":~. ~--:'-.,. ~ '\' Jill ~ "', ~~ --. " \'\/ .,;;..,;;,,/,..::.6-;::f;,' "v" .1 . ,----' -^,-;.;..;,~;,;:.;;\ I m'i~;> ~.: '\ nl)-;"-'" 'NJ9" 4'07. ~ r8607 \....:- "''''77/.:0:, ,;,'/ /~ t:\:"'---~.'--- ---~f- -'....., ""flt.,' f1f/sjJAf \f~ I '~,",'Ir" . \ \ .', ',--~ / " /...,'/,'\ ",'" --- '..... \7i1t JJ I :'... fJ \1, I. I ~L'" I . \ , I I ..... ~ /'... / " a~ -", ,rlU n._._._____. "_ ':Ii . Ii, ' '\' /1./,. , 1\ "'''' "/ ',f ........ ~__r~ \If ...., J\ /1\ I ~\ ........' llJ'",~~/r:.~ \J~:\ 1'-. /",/ / // ..."1 ffS' /'" .../ .. ~'....J~ - ~~;". ~ \': r~\l\' i\i \ ~ \ ,,/'/ I' ~......, ~ 1/ y \ ...... "'... '" /<,/ I "I ,F ./" ~/ :h'....: - ~...." I ! I ~\~,," t\/fu1' ~/ ~..l ,,//.,,, .... "i-~--~~ V\ ............_../" ,.../,,// /;/,// ,'~~ "",-' \' "II\.;. , I, \l~\~ \ ~..... ~. ~.r;A' ...../ I~ 11 .,,- //"/ /;' / loll. " . :'o:<~, ....l. N.... ~ ,:' , ~,'ll Il' /' '/,,1 ..:./ ':,,', :,. ~, ,---- _,'... "..." ,I ,/ ...." I ,.,.... /, I ~ , ~ '1'~1~'i. :\\\.J.' ,.', ~tI/ :~"'i ~ ~....' I~~ ~.1 I _____~.. ./'" /' / /' //,'" /~ '--, ./'tn11l\' .~, .';," ri:..} 'J'^~..:',!, 'Il ',.t. -'-- '-r.(r,. ~...-~ ~':.-'''.../ / / / 1 ':- \ ---.::.-. ~~~ "...-/ I I I \:~~.\~.'\~ 'i!\~"'\ 1. j' I I ....: ..../ ,_../..~/ /" / ./ / \ tV ~!.r' 'il\'\S;.~ 'a~ ""~~]'I/J~fi:'''i:l2."''~ ',. '..." " ';>'''',^..;'''~::/ /' " , r "; -~-_...___ I i ~ ; ~I . " ":'l\~~'t (;11 ',--" Jf' J )1,1\11' ~ --~ ...............;:, ~~ ,/ /"./ ~ '\ ....... t _\.4 ~ I...' --~ '0; "''''"'''' . ~\~. ~u'~ "t~; I..), I . I~.. ..- Q~.."""[;~ '" / ;' - ........ '\ ~ "-;' ~~, - I.\.~ I -..l:' '.A.::.'l'~".~\;... r'" .; I ~~t I , :" \ ~. .... ~.. ~ "" ,,/' \ ... ~\. , .,...~"......", ,,, 4".",,~c.-,' :.' .-' .7~t., f ,'. ' /" ~- g......-,......' '" , I l:.! -- -, '," , "'"'.~ (i" r-"'" , '. ,'? ;../ -.....~ " \ ~ \ __;"'--" -(" Woj - ~ ~..:.. \: ~ '/ ""-' I..".. . J (, ~t-.. I . J : ltl ~ - r;i ........~ / f1 . \... - ....... 't,-;- 11..___-..-~~. /,,"1_:. I, "'(.:..'!- /,Il~-'~ ...1:1. ./.l/l"~-";~- ,::"~.r~~"';/ ~ 't . _ ..,' . '......... ~"'.. .."~", :;-" ~~!I"~.' "'~~'/"-- .' ~ , ~......._-~ ~ ',"/ /~,.t !"~~~-\\..~~'~''''~ ~ ~"" ,;'~.. ...."...r -; ..;" Nit I.' 'I' Iti"'l----'----'-II--:_........ ro /'.... -, "-. ' : -~ -"-'Y::.7fSl_ " . .}...'.....'I " ""',~ ,. r--;"'"r~ ~ '" "\ ~ ..'. ;';. ...~.. j , ~'~ -" ; 'i.- .~. -. _.' ''';,. j 'I : l' . :~t ~~./Sl.I:-i~ :.,' ,,; ,. /~- ~ ~ ;S (.... - " , to J ..... \ ,-........--; ~ ,- - ... .. . I / j .,'" 1/ I ts I, "Q ...... ~ \ '1 ...._~~.... \ .tI L'\.~ _/ . /;.; '..... :_..: ~ 1\"'I\i~! ' i'{(: J"", ~' / ~ '-.. . \ ' .~ /"." I " 01" '.::Z:" 7!J' . , /',: ',,1. '. ~1' ,'f~ ;f.' '" ~ "\" ~ ...........i ..,~.r".,._ j - " "\',', "./'~ .' I' I .' ~ "Ubi' '\ "'," ';o~ .......' ";"- .-.':\. ,-- -, ,,"'. ~ ' . "" 1:1 !. ' _.'" \ ..... 1[' ............"'-- I ~~. I. " "1' J ~I \:~ ~ /~J 1 I \'~ ~ L ~ _ ,,]I''''d., __ ~ -_.J- I~'~..""'---:-_..:....L.._.. lo....:......... ~~.."\'.~\.~\..r\~~ 11----\ .;::. .--. . . ~-,,\ <-' 'C. > ""'C'o'~:EIJ...'-" ~ \f"l. ,'. .' ~ ,<. \ ",' .'" .A'....... " , ,......... :. . ~\;," i \ . ... : 'N,' , '.. "(;' "< , . ' , ..:;\ 0;'< ',~ . II \ i,,~. ."." '" ~., ~~~ / '-'. .... .. -';,. ..'" .. ".1' \ . "/ ~.I I .O"'Q ::;: 'I' '.' ..". ',' ~ G \ '.-,/,. :'.' ::.-\ .~1t"., l .:~..~' )to.:i, 7lJ!l: ",'.' :.;...' ': ~ / /:11 ~ ~'" " ~\ ~ .....t;./. ~:/. ~ .....-1 )I/',,~ /, ........ .' .. ~ ~ .1 J '._~' \ I' / /:; " , I /\..... I ~,\\ \\~~\\_.;.\.:y._--...... 8 ~-, -~. Q --, -',',,'" "~ / -,..../>....""... /' ., r \, \'" ", C/J/ ~"'A- '., .:0 '\1,\\ fll . . /~ .,,' : ~ ,- . I :.__"': ,~ ['':;..1 ~', --;'. ; '.' / .,.~~f, '/,:.:; 1>,; ..;>: };~~>,':.'_'----'---.::.' >- I." ,,"._ ."'_' " ".' , ,1;-::".1',.1, I." " ..' v,,~._,~<0..~';"'-- __-- .... ~'''' / . /~ /', '.-:':' '/-7~ ~ ~ " ,~< ,_/ . ,.: j. ;. \ "r / /,-'.,. , \,'> ----- ~ . . -L~..! _,;.~ ';,. "" - - .~, . ~' ".. ~/. /. 0 .; './ ......-- r i\ .;: ,~.;. '.'..., 'I I'" . . 0..::.....; .. "",,--,:i:l,' <..:" "'-< . 'l. // "~1" U J -.' '.' ".., "/.' '!~..~, ".',1 r . ~ ,,'/~ 'I"" " '/ ---j ~ I ,. /' ~ .~/'; /: ;~~, I ':' ~-i ., . /........ ~ ,. /, ..' !,..~/' I cr~/ ~ ." ,;,_.,.:tl -.... .,: ''''. ~..,,,,,,,. "'./ ,/j,,,,,.' \ \.(:,\1, 1 ~ _,./!g'::'s'" ,<',. , ". ~'. ,; /~"I""":'{~'~ ":..,, (/ I <: r" ....._f!._', ""' ...' _I '~. ". ~~.' -" Iro ..... .~,.-;'~~~I- " '.: .~~ G) , :;;;, /; .' .:.&;::~ .~. ~ I ci .:. .1.... /1" ...~:\ , V 1)o14~C" . ~ \ /-----~ , '/--f,'., ';. I'" , :' \..~~.:'iVf~) i ".... I /,,~:.':..------ 2 :; / '};:0;1: ,,-u ('I; ~ i . \ '~":' / .~~)Ij~ '::J') ~::~/ ~ .:::~.~.;::;:"~ -~:: ~"'<, 1>t ~ ~.I. ~ -..,..1---,""" i"1n ' ~t,- J r- .."~ t'..' , " .. .;;j ...; ",,-,-'::::. ,"'" I ~'-~) i Cl:J ., '~"~-' ,', p, . ',.~ ~h- _:, '~I " F""HI ~~ fll ;s. .~ '-'" \' i :')' ~i '~\~- ']:~\~rr-~'7~~ic:'].-; I ::0 ~ , . "-.I;l '.~ I ,~, ", J "\~'f" (I:I~B' r::"r rOo, GJ ~ ,,-." " '::J: ';--,' , "'-'. ,~':'\ ':~' .~~ ": ~ :i <. t.:.V',i:.-~~':'7/=::'} "'~~~--~--~'/i;;;'_ .,,,. . ,- -,'"::;: '...",. /f ''''~ / " --:..\ 't; . . "....,... /". ~ . . ~ -----_ ...... ~ , I =-< .- / ... - i ~ .: - . . ',:',,:: ~ /.... -.;; ~,.. '" ~~,_:~:~"_,,,~",'~'-'_:\, c-:-'-. :.Fu'\"f:--tl~ I 'r ::0 --- \oj r-::::" .~, , ". ;, _u - .. .,.."...,-- :.':'F-;-,-,:, ..," h = II A;: - . .Ii.......... " / -'.~ ~'. ~ "- \ ~ '1,>'it .)\ '~"/i~\ ..---1 ': """ .- - - <:" " - > '$. I \ - L. I. ..., , ~.. ,.\ ....-- J ----.- "'- ..... t" - - - ~ ""~ _ ~ I / L.........---- 8rr~~~rNClU~ /IId"O rfl ' "',. . <':, ~ """ \.. I~ I .... ......f--.------ In ~I', ... ( --- (e---,"-~:_::_;:r.k,~~/ I ...............-;...., <::: " " -.,......, .1 ~ . ,,_ _I ....::.:. . '-'/ :\; '_ .,"1"'"":, ''''/-,''. .' '-, ' :. ~7'..,..:...-.- I "\ _~ f~,.-=- _ { ~-_. ~~_. ~~~. 'J....... " ~ "<. -., ~! ~ ~ '\ ,/ '? " $rjr.J"" LIlT! ~ r' '!":if: l/~ ,,,, r~!" s~. t/~ 01" :;~l;r!ON ,., ~ ~ :; ~ .< 88'53 '59' E 131,..82 '1- ~~:;- H~ ~ I ~ u~ n: l" ~;: ~, ~ ~;~ ! I ii ~ \ n I ~ ,,\ 1. ~ r :~~~\ ~ t~: :,ql '~. I ", ;. 1 ~ u~~~~~;~". ::I ,I ------,~..\. --.T-~ t. '{ \ '~H ~t t :~tf' ~ ' ".' ~:. ~ \ ~ ~ . .:~l~..,Jd~' 1.\ ~ ~ ~ H Qn____.~>>, ~ ~ ':; ~ 1 II ~ @ Ir~ ~ ! ~~~ I! ! p~ \; H~ ;: ~~~ I': 'lI "'. ~ )" ~ ~ ~:<" \ ,,'\, ~ ~ \ . ~ Hl ~ t ~ \ ' , 'i >1 ~ ~ : ~ 'il " ~ ~ ~~ 1 '. \ .'t ~ ~ ~ ..~ ' .. PHt . ~t ~ ~ k ;. ' '>; en ~... ..... r" ." ~ <J ~~ Exhibit B - Site Plan ;>; fi, ,- r- ~ !<) . . <l.I .~ <ll .w Q) <ll H j:l <e H <l.I <l.I .w .w r-l ..-1 <em II II ~ OJ-(.! j~ .~ rj .w j:l Q) S ~ t>ll ..-1 r-l <e "0 <ll o ~ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/02/99 7. Continued Public Hearin2 - Consideration of a reauest for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for a Develooment Staee PUD approval within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nugget Develovment. Inc. (Jeff O'Neill) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission acted to table action on the Pine Meadows preliminary plat pending input from the MOAA at the meeting on the 27th of January. Based on the discussion at this meeting, it appears that the MOAA is leaning toward designation of the Pine Meadows area as industrial. However, a final decision was not made pending additional discussion at the City and Township level. Please note that a special meeting of the City Council has been tentatively scheduled by Mayor Belsaas for 5:30 Monday February 8 1999 for the purpose of discussing the proposed MOAA plan. It is suggested that the Planning Commission attend this important meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to continue the public hearing to a later date pending input from the MOAA. Unfortunately, the next Planning Commission meeting (March) will be held one day after the next regularly scheduled MOAA meeting which means that the earliest that a Planning Commission decision can be made using MOAA input will occur in April. Action in April would occur within the 120 day limit prescribed by the subdivision ordinance. If the Planning Commission desires to obtain input from the MOAA prior to making its decision on the plat, then the public hearing should be continued. As noted above, it is important that the Planning Commission attend the Council workshop which will provide the opportunity to provide input to your representatives. 2. Motion to approve the preliminary plat based on findings noted in the previous agenda item on this topic. If the Plmming Commission wishes to forward the matter to the City Council based on the finding that the development is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city, then this alternative should be selected. -5- . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/02/99 Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat 3. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Information from City Council Packet - 1/25/99. . . -6- . . . Council Agenda - 1/25/99 10. Backl:round for the City Council's ioint meeting with the MOAA Board and Monticello Township Board. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This information is provided to the City Council in preparation for the upcoming joint meeting with the Township Board and MOAA Board regarding land use in the MOAA. As you are aware, the MOAA Board has recommended that the City and Township consider an amendment to its Orderly Annexation Area Agreement which would revise the references to the Land Use Plan in the MOAA. The agreement was adopted with references to the Southwest Area Concept Plan, and a version of that plan which was in draft form at the time of the agreement was attached as Exhibit C. The City Council subsequently made adjustments to the Southwest Area Concept Plan based on property owner and public meeting input prior to formally adopting the Concept Plan as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The MOAA Board has prepared a draft land use plan for the consideration of the City Council and Township Board. It as variance with both Exhibit C and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff has summarized those changes and has listed some of the issues which the City Council will want to examine in its discussion with the Board. Engineering staITis providing additional infixmation on some of the utility and transportation impacts of the changes as well. The attached map identifies the areas discussed below. AREA 1 This area consists of the industrial designated area north of Silver Springs Golf Course and west of the Orchard Road overpass. MOAA Board members suggest a designation on the plan which identifies this area as "Future Industrial" to highlight the need for a freeway interchange at Orchard Road for access to 1-94. Issues: The key to the development readiness of this area is access to City services, including sewer, water, and adequate transportation facilities. While the "Future Industrial" designation is not necessary under the MOAA agreement, it reflects the nature of the development status in this area. AREA 2 This area lies east of Silver Springs Golf Coursc along the freeway between the "Ponderosa" and "OK Corral Ranchettes" rural subdivisions (about 27 lots) and the Devron Greens rural subdivision (about 13 lots). The City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the March 1998 Exhibit C, and the May 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendment identified this area as industrial. The MOAA Board suggests a change to low density residential. 5 \.. r/\ , Council Agenda - 1/25/99 . Issues: .. Future industrial land supply, given the City's industrial development goals .. Compatibility of industrial land near the rural subdivisions .. Compatibility of residential land adjacent to the freeway .. Compatibility of residential land along a future minor arterial roadway AREA 3 This area is the "Chadwick" property south of County Highway 39, cast of the YMCA land, and west of the future Chelsea R.oad alignment. Exhibit C, the version of the Southwest Area Plan which was in draft form when the MOAA Agreement was signed, showed this area as residential. The City's Comprehensive Plan amendment guided this area for industrial, based on its accessibility and the presence of two major power line corridors which cut through the property. The MOAA Board suggests a change to low density residential. Issues: . .. Mid-term industrial land supply .. Compatibility of industrial land near the YMCA property (separated by a power line corridor) .. Compatibility of residential development along the Chelsea Road extension and ,minor arterial street .. Compatibility of residential development in an area of major power line corridors AREA 4 This area is a portion of YMCA land which is separated from the bulk of the YMCA property by 90th Street. It was included in the MOAA's revised boundaries to allow the border to follow the street. The City's Comprehensive Plan, Exhibit C, and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment direct low density residential development on this site. The MOAA Board suggests Public/Quasi Public to reflect its current ownership. Issues: There is no concrete knowledge of YMCA's intent to retain or dispose of this property. It was designated residential as a future development scenario. The only issue related to a Public/Quasi Public designation would be the need for an amendment to the MOAALand Use Plan (and possibly the City's Land Use Plan) if the YMCA sought to sell or dispose of the property. . AREA 5 This parcel is the 220-acre property cast of Trunk Highway 25, south of the Kjellberg East Mobile Home Park, currently under development application by Gold Nugget Development. The City's Comprehensive Plan, along with previous land use plans for 6 1\'~ Council Agenda - 1/25/99 . both thc City and the MOAA, direct this land for low dcnsity residential developmcnt. As the City Council is aware, a PUD application was submitted for concept approval last spring, and an EA W ft)l' residential development based on thc concept plan was reviewed last fall. Thc devcloper has submitted a preliminary plat application to the Planning Commission, which continued its public hearing to February, pending inf(Jrmation received at the upcoming joint meeting. The MOAA suggests redesignating this site for industrial development. Issues: ~ Compatibility of industrial development with the adjoining residential land use ~ Compatibility of additional industrial traffic with the Highway 25 commercial corridor and the School campus area ~ Costs of sanitary sewer upgrades to accommodate the additional sewer flow from industrial development ~ Quality of development issues related to the site's topography B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS: No action necessary. . c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has provided this summary as a basis for discussing the potential changes to the land use plan proposed by the MOAA. If the MOAA adopts a land use plan which is in conl1ict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City would have to consider amendments to its Plan to entertain development applications on that property. As noted above, the City Engineer wiII have additional comments relating to utility and transportation issues on some of the areas discussed in this report. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Land Use Conl1icts Exhibit B - MOAA Draft Plan . 7 1--3 . . . JAN-22-1999 11:59 .. WSB ~ & Associates. Inc. WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.03/04 BA Mim:lstc:adt. RE. Beet A. Weist!. P.E. Peter R. Willenbring. P.E. Oon:'l.ld W. Sterna, p.E. Ronald B. Bray. RE. 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis. MN 55426 612-541.4800 FAX 541-1700 Memorandum To: Jeff O'Neill, Deputy Administrator City of MonticeUo BretA. Weiss, P.E.~ City Engineer From: Date: January 22,1999 Re: Pine Meadows Residential vs. Industrial TraffIC Characteristics WSB Project No.1 01 0.73 As you requested, we are providing a comparison of Residential (single family) development versus Industrial type development with respect to traffic impacts. The following table summarizes the anticipated traffic generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (lYE) Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition. Use Trlps I nay Generation Rate ITrips/Acre/Day) Pine Meadows (220 Ac.) Single Family Residential 26.04 5720 Light Industrial Industrial Park Manufacturing 51.80 63.11 38.88 57.23 11396 13884 8553 12591 Warehouse As is apparent, any type of Light Industrial, Manufacturing or Warehousing use typically generate 35% or more trips in a day than Single Family Residential. In addition to the number of vehicles generated by the development, several other factors should be considered when comparing these types of uses. M;nn~4polis · St. Cloud I"fNs~ En,;"''''' Plmlnerl F:\WPWlN\IOI O.7J\OI2299.jo. F.C1TJAJ OPPORTTJNITY EMPlOYER 'iA . JAN-22-1999 11:59 ... WS8 ~ & Associates, Inc. WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis. MN 55426 612-541~OO FAX 541-1700 6125411700 P.02/04 SA. Mittelsteadt. P..E. Bret A. Weiu. PoE. Peter R. Willenbring. P.E.. Donald ~ Stem., P.E. Ronald B. Bay, Pot. Memorandum To: Jeff O'Neill, Depu.ty Administrator City of Monticello Bret A. Weiss, P.E, tt)ttl- City Engineer From: Date,' January 22,1999 Re,' Pine Meadows Sanitary Sewer Availability WSB Project No. 1010.73 .. As requested, we have quickly looked at the issues related to converting the Pine Meadows area from residential to industrial development as it relates to the sanitary sewer. There have been many conversations regarding the fact that the City's system is CUJTently under-sized, even for residential development, to accommodate the Pine Meadows development. This reference is specifically related to the lift station located adjacent to Chelsea Road known as the Reservoir Lift Station. The statement is correct that, with the ultimate development of the Pine Meadows area in addition to other areas along School Boulevard and south of Cardinal Hills, the reservoir lift station will need to be upgraded significantly. The concern with the conversion to Industrial development is the trunk mains between this area and the lift station. We have looked at other options for dealing with the lift station including possible elimination to the extension of the Southeast Interceptor. The results of that study are forthcoming at a future council meeting. The modification of the land use from residential to industrial from a planning standpoint would assume a doubling of the sanitary sewer capacity from the area. At this time, with significant portions of the property still undeveloped in the area draining to the sanitary sewer trunk line, the development of this property would be achievable, however, as the property continues to infill, an alternative design would be necessaIy to accommodate the additional flows. Several options are available, including rerouting property located south of Cardinal Hills to another location, however. there would still be portions of the system that would surcharge during peak flow periods. Any modification of the system would involve reallocating access in the pipe,which will involve additional costs. I am not in a position at this time to identify what kind of costs may be involved, but certainly somewhere in the neighborhood ofS1 00,000 to S250,OOO would be reasonable to revise the system and account for dollars previously spent that will not be utilized. . Minneapolis · St. Clou4 1lIJhu~ Engine"., Plall1ln'S EQUAL OPPORTHNnY FMPT OYER ~/~ nm 1:\WPWlN\IOIO.73 . l~ ; ~ . . JAN-22-1999 11:59 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.04/04 . The number of heavy vehicle (trucks) traffic that will be generated by the Industrial type developments is significantly higher than Residential developments. Typically, heavy vehicle traffic is 2% of total traffic for Residential and up ta 15% of total traffic far Industrial. . The pavement section to handle the additional heavy vehicle traffic will be significantly more, thus adding additional cost to the construction of roadways. . Access to the development, especially onto high-speed roadways, would need to be evaluated to accommodate slow-moving trucks turning onto high-speed roadways. If you have any questions, or need any additional information on this topic, please let me know. cp/nm ,,/~ F:\WPWIN\I 01 0.73\0 1 2299-jo2 TOTAL P.04 . Monticello Orderly Annexation: W,ight COu.nlt. "Inft..ot. LAND USE PLAN MoJ"v'.; D iZ- p...pr ~.N. ...... .....hJ"'---, r-, ";"---, '1"-; "j"--; .,,""' ~..!.r-J~.,!.---J':" Dl-D<<o.!'I.il;'f~ I. ~1 u..~~" o....liy __lNnlIoioI IBc-~'" 1-" \. . ," . . . . :: '~ . . .':Jg ~Y- _ _ ~ :'\'f-I '._.._____.ii-__~_~_iiir_.. ~Ind""'~ ~P'"tIIIlr.IQ~IPutioIIc . ; --.' -B/11 \~ rr ~ . 1-~ . . . ':-. . (fo. Ocello, LLC. 10738 Hanson Boulevard NW Coon Rapids, M N 55433 Tel: (812) 755-6554 Fax: (612) 755-6311 January 22, 1999 Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and City Staff: It is our understanding that the City Council is considering a change to the comprehensive plan on the 220 acre parcel that we own and have under contract with Gold Nugget Development. The City Council and developer agreed to over size and over depth the sewer line to this parcel in order to serve a future residential site. This oversizing was done at the developer's expense and roughly $103,000.00 has been expensed to date on this project. Gold Nugget has a similar amount of money invested in design, survey, engineer and soil work based on a residential land use. Because of these expenditures, this parcel can now be developed for residential land use at no cost to the city. When the change to the comprehensive plan is considered, I hope that you would also consider the leap-frog affect this would have on industrial development. The transition from industrial to residential development is on the north side of Klein Farms. The residents of Klein Farms purchased their property and built their homes knowing that this, the north side, was the transition area. They knew that the south side, the 220 acre parcel, was slated for residential development. There has been concern expressed regarding the value of housing being built in Monticello. Almost everyone has to start somewhere and after they have the financial ability they move to second tier housing and if lucky, to executive housing. In our long- term plan of working with the City of Monticello, we envisioned the 220 acre parcel to be the next step up and the Hoglund parcel to be a step above that. With these things in mind and after reviewing the attached Fact Sheet, we request that the City Council not make a change to the zoning regarding this 220 acre parcel since it seems that the logical corridor for industrial use is along the 94 corridor where the needed exposure will be achieved. Respectfulty, Antho J. Emmerich Chief Manager Attachment '\'~ " - January 22nd, 1999 . Monticello, Minnesota Oak Ridge Subdivision Klein Farms Subdivision . Fact Sheet . ~~(D . Oak Ridge . The land for the subdivision "Oak Ridge", was purchased in 1993. . Every lot in Oak Ridge has been sold and a home constructed upon it ranging in price from $85,000.00 to $175,000.00 Klein Far .'IS . The land for the subdivision "Klein Fanns" was purchased in 1994. . By June of 1995 we had begun selling lots and builders were constructing their homes. . By December 1998 all lots have been sold with homes ranging in price from $100,000.00 to $165,000.00 Sm1mary . Since 1994, when we first began developing in Monticello we have developed, sold and built on 347 lots. Single family and townhome lots included. OVer the past five years 347 homes have been built with an average sales price per home of $122,103.00. Resulting in over $42,736,050.00 of housing production in Monticello. We have also contributed a 20 acre park to the city on our most prime parcel, along with contributing almost $800,000.00 in building School Blvd. knowing we wouldn't benefit from it until the population increased. We have also developed 110 acres of commercial industrial land and also own substantial industrial land. Please take a moment to reflect on the vast amount of personnel, time and funds needed to complete each of these projects. From the start we need: Land, developers, brokers, agents, bankers, surveyors, designers, engineers, closers, accountants, planners, excavators, sewer contractors, abstractors, laborers, inspectors, consultants, street contractors, utility companies, curb crews, builders and their many employees and sub-contractors. To produce 70 lots and houses annually it takes 38 direct employees. Based on infonnation provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the median construction trade income including professional services is $18.46 per hour. Using our five (5) year average, our annual contribution to the Monticello economy is $8,547,210.00, of which $1,459,078.00 is direct payroll, I would be willing to compare that average to any industry of similar size and nature in the city. . A strong housing market is a major indicator of a healthy economy. 1-~1 ~~.!:~lrri.~'~ii~,,:'i'ir..I..~I~~,'~,~tr.IiI'jII;t-I"'l , 131/2.:vGG 14:51 NOVRK FLECK INC ~ 612 755 6311 ~01 GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT INC. . 8857 Zealand Avenue North , Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 56445 (612) 424-4955 January \2, 1999 Tony Emmerich Ocello, L1,C 10738 Hanson Blvd. Coon Rapids, lVfN 55433 Dl:ar Mr. Emmerich: . In October of 1998, Gold Nugget Development, Inc. purchased 220 acres located in Monticello from you and your pa11ners. Our stated objective thtm and today b to develop this site as residential. However, community policy and land use changes apparently initiated at the Council level are causing resistance in our eftort to process our proposed subdivision The Planning Commission has tabled our hearing to await the outcome ofIhe Orderly Annexation Board and the City Council's action. I am extremely concerned over this sudden change in community direction since it would have a substantial negative impact on Ollr investment. Gold Nugget Development, Inc. is not an industrial developer, nor do we intend to make an ex.ception in Monticello, especially under these circumstances. We entered into a purchase agreement in January of 1998 and closed on the land in October, during which time you, the City of Monticello and the Orderly Annexation Board represented our site as low family residential. Furthermore, you represented to uS that you had discussed the Klein Fanns phasing and utility expansion plans with the City Council and subsequently reached an agreement to stub utilities to the northeast corner of our property. According to the City Council, you are to be reimbursed from the area charges generated from the first phase of our development In June of 1998, both the Planning Commission and Council granted Concept approval for our entire site. Based on the facts outlined above, we felt secure in proceeding with the acquisition and became fee owner:; in October of 1998 Towards the end of October, a city statl'member sent me the October 12 Council minutes in which Councilmember Clint Herbst asked staff to notify the developer of a possible land use change for our site. That is the first time I became aware of this issue It seems bizarre to me that Monticello would initiate a substantial land use change and not notify the land owner in light of our Concept Plan approval ;. 1 ,At .----' . . . ~ . 01/2?,(99 14:51 NOVRK FLECK INC ~ 612 755 6311 Mr. Tony Emmerich January 12. 1999 It is unfortunate that events have evolved to a point wllere I have no choice but to put you on notice that Gold Nugget Development, Tnc. will seek legal remedies to the extent necessary to protect our interest However. 1 have the fullest confidence that these issues can be resolved in the next few weeks. Sincerely, Richard Novak Secretary Gold Nugget Development, Inc. Gl02 1-- \3 - . . . To: the Monticello Times please print the following as a legal notice in the January 28, 1999 edition bill the City of Monticello per agreement with the City Thank you Tom Salkowski, Wright County MONTICELLO JOINT PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETINGS AND AGENDA Wednesday. January 27.1999 7:30 pm Monticello Township Hall Joint Workshop Meeting with Monticello Town Board and City Council Wednesday. February 3.1999 7:30 pm Monticello Township Hall 1. Approve Agenda; Approve Minutes for January 6, 1999 II. Action- Bowers Gravel Mining EA W (Otter Creek,LLC) III. Public hearing- Bowers Gravel Mining Permit IV. Land Use Plan Review V. Other Business To the Times: Please call Tom at 682-7330 to confirm receipt of this notice in time for this weeks paper. Thank you. ~-I Y Meeting of January 6, 1999 . MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA B MINUTES (Informational) The January 6, 1999 meeting of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Board was called to order at 7:30 PM by Tom Salkowski, Zoning Administrator, with Board members Roger Belsaas, Franklin Denn, Dick Frie, Ted Holker and Pat Sawatzke. City Planner, Steve Grittman, was also present. 1. 1999 ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS A motion was made by Franklin Denn nominating Pat Sawatzke to chair the 1999 MOAA Board. The motion was seconded by Dick Frie. YOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A motion was made by Ted Holker nominating Franklin Denn to the position of vice-chair for the 1999 MOAA Board. Dick Frie seconded the motion. YOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . Sawatzke suggested a change to the December 2, 1998 meeting minutes on page 3, paragraph 3, sentence 5. Sawatzke suggested the word city be added to the sentence. The corrected sentence reads: "Sawatzke's main concern was if this is an appropriate site in relationship to the city ordinance." A motion was made by Frie, seconded by Holker approving the minutes as corrected. YOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A motion was made by Belsaas, seconded by Frie stating the official newspaper of the MOAA Board would be the Monticello Times. YOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Denn made a motion, seconded by Holker stating the meeting time and place of the MOAA Board would remain the first Wednesday of the month at 7:30 PM in the Township Hall. YOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Salkowski reviewed the current per diems and salaries for board members, secretary and administrator and the 1999 staff recommendations. Sawatzke stated he would like to discuss a length of time agreed upon for a meeting. If the meeting goes beyond the agreed upon length of time, then an additional fee would be paid. He stated there have been some meetings in the past that have lasted 30 minutes and he does not see why the increased per diems and salaries would ,then be necessary. Helker stated these meetings have been lasting three times as long as they did before and he did not feel the increases were out of line. Frie stated his experience is usually a raise is proposed high and maybe a happy medium could be agreed upon. Following discussion, Frie made a motion, seconded by Belsaas to approve the following per diems and salaries for 1999; Board members - $30 per diem, Secretary - $60 per diem plus mileage, Administrator - $75 per diem plus mileage. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . 1 ry-6 . Frie requested that, prior to the end of the Board meeting, he would be allowed to address board members. A motion was made by DCIID, seconded by Frie approving the agenda with the addition of Frie's suggestion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II. REVIEW - BOWERS GRAVEL MINING EA W (OTTER CREEK. LLC) Salkowski gave an overview of the process of an Environmental Assessment Work Sheet. He stated the format is set by the state and all the checklist items are addressed. He noted that no public hearing is required, but the Chair could allow input and questions at this informational meeting. Formal comments on the FA W must be submitted in writing before the end of the comment period which will be around the middle of January. Because the comment period is still open, no action can be taken on the permit request at this time. Salkowski stated staff would take comments and would summarize them and provide responses at the February meeting. The decision as to whether or not an Environmental Impact Study is necessary would be determined then by this board. Salkowski invited the county highway engineer to come tonight because mmIY of the public concerns revolved around traffic issues. . Mr. Bowers and Mr. Chadwick presented a map of the location and reviewed the mining plmls. They stated another road is proposed to exit the property to 90th Street. Mr. Bowers stated their market is within a two mile radius of their location and the demand would determine how much gravel is mined. Currently, there are two other sources from which to get gravel outside of this two mile radius. Schluender would share the same radius as Bowers. Bowers stated his plan is to service the area for now. Eventually, he will run out of material. His plan calls for mI average of 30 trips a day for the working season. He stated until our reserve is used up, gravel needed in the immediate area will travel 600 miles less per year, than if people used the other two sources outside of the two mile radius. A traffic consultant assisted him with this analysis and is still working on a final report. Bowers discussed the possibility of ground water contamination, stating they would be monitoring the well closest to the site to periodically check for contaminants. Regulations state if there is a problem it needs to be corrected immediately and is their responsibility. He stated the contaminants, if there were any, would come from the recycle pile. The recycle pile would be kept separate from their other products. In regard to noise and dust, Bowers stated the noise is confined to a radius of approximately 100' from the crushing and screening area. He stated the mining would take place IS' below surrounding ground level. He stated his plan is to protect the visual impact and noise level by a natural screen. The dust would not be a problem due to crushing in a hole. He stated when dust is created it would come up, hit the bank and fall out of the air. He also stated ifthe moisture content gets below approximately 3% he would add water to the crushing operation. Mist at transfer points diminishes the dust traveling from the mining area and this is regulated by the PCA. Bowers stated they tried to highlight their responses to the three most asked questions mId concerns which he felt he has addressed. He stated they plml to remain 50' back from Otter . 2 f{~0 . . . Creek and will be silt fencing the two wetland areas. MN DOT has requested no surface run-off onto Interstate 94. In regard to visual impact, the operation will take place in a hole and the embankment will be covered with either planted or natural vegetation. Salkowski introduced Wayne Fingalson, County Highway Engineer, and Bill Cordell, Senior Traffic TecImician, to address any questions the public may have regarding the roads. Wayne stated they had reviewed the access locations for safety and an access directly across from Dalton Avenue would yield the safest site.. Wayne explained there is currently a no passing zone at the top of the bridge. They are proposing a combination right turn/bypass lane at Dalton, and an acceleration lane on the south side of the road going east. Comments were taken from the public. Cheryl Gibb - How do you handle bicycle safety with a passing lane on one side and a ditch on the other? Wayne stated there will now be a paved shoulder for the bicyclists instead of gravel. BuffY Arvidson - I don't think riding a bike in the travel lane is safe. Also, you can't tell what is ahead of you going over the overpass. Kids will be biking to the Community Center once it's completed. Jane Larter - distributed copies of a letter from a person unable to be here tonight, Nora Job. BuffY Arvidson- children are dropped off the bus at that same intersection. Jerry Crocker - Jerry asked Wayne what he would suggest they build there in regard to safety. Wayne stated he would require twin bypass lanes in both directions with an extended acceleration lane. Robert Larter - The acceleration lane was not proposed originally. Where does this acceleration lane end? Wayne did not have exact figures. Jolm Gibb - Without a hot mix plant how do you plan to process asphalt? Bowers eXplained that recycled asphalt would have to go back to an asphalt plant. However, driveways or small projects could be used with a base including crushed asphalt. No heat will be added to it. Gibb also asked about concrete processing. Bowers stated it would be used for recycled Class V. Jane Larter - I am disappointed that in regard to the traffic issues your counts reflect 1995 information. I called and obtained infonnation for 1996 and the count was 1,000 higher. I think we are dealing with grossly underestimated traffic flows. Genevieve Ichter - 15 trucks in and out a day. Is that all? How many trips will there be? Bowers stated the estimated average would be 15 round trips. Robert Larder - The EA W1acks in many areas regarding mining and recycling and includes en"oneous information. The wrong southwest area plan is included. There are major conflicts - a gravel mining site in an industrial site which is residential in the Southwest area plan. The LUP is not adopted yet. I am also concerned with a washing plant. Bowers stated the washing plant has been withdrawn and may never come to be. A washing plant would also require a different permit process. Brad Beagert - There is a ground water issue - # 18, noise and dust discusses the use of water. There is a contradiction in #8 and # 13. Will the mist be serviced by the well on the property? Bowers stated there is not much water used in a mist so it doesn't turn into ground water. He stated he would probably be trucking in water for that purpose from a hydrant. Beagert stated 3 ~ t' \1 . that would add another vehicle to the traffic. Salkowski asked what the contaminants from the recycle pile would be. Bowers suggested they could come from a spill on the road. Salkowski asked if they could place the recycle pile on a clay base because once a contaminant hits watcr it is to late. Salkowski also cautioned Bowers on the free dumping and this being open to the public. Bowers stated it would be free, however, it is a locked facility and anything brought in would be monitored by an employee before dumping. Salkowski questioned the average 30 trucks per day, noting that the usual nature of a gravel pit is to be very busy, perhaps with hundreds of trips per day, when ajob is going, but then be nearly dormant for long periods. Bowers agreed that averaging traffic may not be the best way to describe it, and referred to the ongoing traffic analysis he is having done. Jim Moore - What is the lcngth ofthe permit? Is it ammally renewed? Jim Schillewart - The area is currently zoned agricultural now, right? Isn't it up to the Board as to whether they will allow this and issue a permit? Belsaas asked if there will be a limited crushing operation stating this had not been addressed tonight. Bowers stated a couple of times a year the crusher would come in. Bowers stated if the commtmity would prefer he would avoid crushing during the months of June, July and August as these seem to be the months of the year people are outdoors enjoying their yards. Frie stated regardless of the EA W study end result, a conditional use pennit would have to be . issued by this Board. Denn asked Salkowski to explain what action members of the Board should plan to take at the next meeting. Salkowski stated the EA W serves two purposes. The results would determine whether the EIS should be required. The EIS is usually only done only with a very extensive project. The action at the next meeting should be to determine if an EIS is necessary and then determine if a permit should be issued. If no EIS is required, the EA W should still be useful in determining conditions on a mining permit. Any comments the public would like entered on the EA W should be in writing and sent to the Plamling and Zoning oflice in Buffalo by January 14, 1999. There is no action required at this time. III. CONTINUE BOWERS GRAVEL MINING PERMIT HEARING The process of the EA W needs to be completed before any permit can be issued. A motion was made by Frie and seconded by Belsaas to continue this hearing to the February 3, 1999 MOAA Board meeting. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. At 9:00 PM a five minute break was called. . 4 1-\~ . IV. ANNEXATION REVIEW - KJELLBERG'S MOBILE HOME PARK (WEST) Salkowski stated he has received all the paperwork related to this annexation request. Salkowski eXplained that Parcel B is the mobile home park and Parcel A is the crop and wetlands. Belsaas stated the obstacles between Kjellberg's and the city have been ironed out. Denn stated there has been an ongoing verbal agreement with the city for sometime and this should be annexed if the appropriate documents have been obtained. Holker asked for clarification on whether Parcel A and B would be annexed. Holker stated he thought the city only wanted Parcel B. It was stated the request from the City is to annex only Parcel B. Belsaas made a motion, seconded by Denn approving the annexation of Parcel B on the survey submitted because it meets the criteria for almexation, is located within the Southwest Area Concept Plan and is contiguous to the City. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. V. ANNEXATION REVIEW - ROLLING WOODS . Salkowski explained the area in review is 40 acres southeast of the :Monte Club. He stated the Land Use Plan (LUP) has not yet been adopted and the Board could choose to handle this in the same way they handled Wildwood Ridge or wait for the LUP to be adopted. Mark Woolston is the developer and John Bogart is here as his consultant. John indicated if there are questions we can talk about them. However, regardless of the LUP it seems sooner or later this area is going to become residential. Frie made a motion to annex the Rolling Woods property because it is contiguous to the City, has met the application requirements for annexation and does not conflict with preliminary drafts of the land use plan (LUP) for the Orderly Annexation Area, and therefore the Board forwards approval of annexation to the City. This motion died for lack of a second.. Holker stated he felt the LUP should be up and running before voting on this, although, he doesn't foresee it changing from residential. Frie stated he thinks the Board should have the LUP in place before voting on this because it seems to be the stumbling block. Ellen Bakken - I think this process should go forward. I am worried about my in-laws. I want them to benefit from the land, not me. Sawatzke stated it seems to be a procedural problem as far as how this should be handled, and both the City and Township have been aware that annexation will be a problem until a new plan is adopted. Salkowski stated he and Grittman have a narrative to put together with the LUP which will take some time, but cannot be done reasonably until all parties reach a consensus on the map. There was discussion among members of the Board as to whether it would be better to dismiss this item at the time or whether it should be denied or withdrawn by the applicant. Salkowski stated any of the alternatives could be justified. Mr. Woolston stated he would like to withdraw it at this time. . 5 1~ I q . . . VI. LAND USE PLAN REVIEW Salkowski summarized for the Board the correspondence attached to the staff report for their review. He stated the Township has agreed to ajoint meeting and disposing of Exhibit C to the joint agreement. However, the City would like to keep Exhibit C in the agreement until these issues are resolved and only discuss the Southwest area at ajoint meeting. Salkowski stated he felt it would be beneficial to get this Board" the City and Township at a joint meeting to agree upon a LUP. He suggested tonight this Board should decide what they would like the map to look like, then bring this to the joint meeting with the City and Township for discussion. Belsaas agreed this Board should come to an understanding tonight so they could bring this to the larger group and have something to start the discussions. Grittman presented the cun-ent draft map at this time for the Board's discussion, and asked what changes the Board would recommend. Grittman explained the "Bohanon" property was entirely" industrial before and after some adjustments the map shows Industrial only between the proposed Chelsea Road and the freeway. Sawatzke asked the Board members to voice their various concerns about the map, in order to see if a consensus can be reached. Several suggestions were discussed by members of the Board. The area north of Chelsea Road should be industrial, South should be residential. At the "Golden Nugget" area of 106 and 25 the land which is proposed as residential should be industrial. The YMCA land should be changed from residential to public/quasi-public land like the golf courses. The freeway side of the gravel pit be industrial but the other side of proposed Chelsea could be residential. Holker stated something needs to be done about Chelsea Road, as he doesn't believe the way it crosses Highway 39 is practical. Salkowski reminded members of the Board the more yellow shading the worse the tax base is going to be. The problems of a "bedroom community" without jobs will compound. Grittman stated he must repeat his concern about the impact on Highway 25. He believes that industrial development south of the mobile home park will have a very negative impact on the highway_ Sawatzke noted that the industrial in the far northwest might be appropriate, but it is far in the future and he is concerned that designating it Industrial now might give the wrong impression. For the purpose of a joint meeting with the City and Township, Grittman was directed by consensus of the Board to make the following changes in the map. - The property south of Kjellberg's mobile home park, east of Highway 25, north of 85th Street and west of Edmonson to be designated Industrial. - All YMCA properties, most of which are wetland, will be designated Public/Quasi-public. - All lands east of Cameron Avenue and north of County Highway 39 to be residential. - For the lands between County Highway 39 and 90th Street, the area between proposed Chelsea Road and the freeway to be industrial, and all others to be residential. There was discussion as to when the joint meeting should be scheduled. Members of the Board agreed the Wednesday before the next MOAA Board meeting would be a good time. Salkowski 6 1,JD . was directed to invite the City Council and Town Board to a meeting on Wednesday, January 27, 1999, 7:30 PM at the Township Hall. At this meeting, the MOAA Board would propose their map for discussion. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Frie stated effective January II, 1999 he would be resigning his position from the MOAA Board stating he felt it was the right time to step down. He stated he enjoyed working with all the members of the Board and thanked them for the opportunity to work with them. Frie made a motion, seconded by Belsaas to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 PM. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, . I //%'\ Irom s' kowski, Joint Planning Board Administrator . . 7 1~J) .:J .~ ....:.......... -J Development Framework Page 20 ~.. eA generalized land use and transportation concept is illustrated on the previous page for the Southwest neighborhood. --' -- , To serve new development in the Southwest neighborhood, the Comprehensive Plan proposes a system of street development which includes a major collector along the south side of the interstate. This street would not necessarily be a traditional "frontage" road, in that development access would be available to both sides to get the greatest benefit from it. At County Road 39, the extension of the 7th Street collector from the Northwest neighborhood would intersect with the new south side collector road. Connection to Highway 25 would be made through the development of two new intersections there at School Boulevard and the extension of Chelsea Road. These improvements are illustrated by the concept plan on the previous page. J .hnost all of the Southwest Monticello neighborhood will need to be annexed from Monticello Township. While much of the area is not within the current Orderly Annexation Area, annexations are likely to be required regardless of their location. Indeed the OAA agreement and boundaries should be reviewed with the Township as an implementation phase following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Appropriate revisions will be necessary to accommodate orderly growth over the next several years. .:-"i ~\ --d -- 'l .-J. 'J "" _l ~ --J.' -- '-J :01 -' ~ J :lJj'-. J' -, - 41' 2' It is not necessary for the City to annex all of the growth area at once if the OAA is appropriately located and planned. Instead, annexations can be staged to coincide with the westerly spread of ,." :: development into the Southwest area. The ... success of the OAA amendment process will ;::;j" direct the City's stance on additional annexation ... efforts. The ability to protect the Southwest j, .onticello area for the uses shown in the long .: l~, :::=t m ~ MOflticello Compreheflsive Plafl Developmeflt Framework -, ~.,. term land use plan is critical to the success and implementation of Comprehensive Plan. One of the implementation steps to be considered in the realization of the City's housing goals is an increased use of Planned Unit Development design. This process allows flexibility in the subdivision standards to penn it more attractive or innovative subdivision design, and preservation and enhancement of the region's natural features. Some options may be clustered neighborhoods, larger lot sizes, or other open space preserving tools. Southeast Monticello The remaining neighborhood area is "Southeast Monticello". This area is characterized by a mix of land uses, including strip, or highway related, commercial, industrial, the Monticello school campus property, and large areas of more recent single family development. There is a relatively significant amount of undeveloped land in this area, and will likely see much of the infill development activity for the next few years as infrastructure is being prepared for the Southwest area. As identified in the discussion of Southwest Monticello, the Comprehensive Plan suggests a limitation on the amount of growth to be continued in the Southeast. The reasons are explored in the previous section, and include fmandaI management issues, social or community issues, and efficiency issues. This is not to say that development is halted in this district, but that the extent of the current serviceable area be used as an urban growth limit line for the purpose of consideration of new utility and other infrastructure investments. 1- 'Jc7 tl' l.. ' II!! Developmelll Framework Page 22 L erhe result of this policy would be "infill" Iff! development of the existing service area. Infill is I often thought of as lot by lot building on ri overlooked pa~cels. ~ere the term is used to [} suggest the sIte by sIte development as yet L undeveloped land which is capable of being I'Tel- served by existing infrastmcture. The first tier of ::...: lands within this area contain approximately 8 to L . 12 years of residential land supply, based on the I~. :: Comprehensive Plan's slow and fast growth rates, llJ. respectively. [Industrial land supply is l. approximately 15 to 20 years, base on current IjJ] consumption rates, however, heavy industrial (as L opposed to light industrial) land is likely to be .. consumed in less time. Much of the available U industrial land supply is programmed for light ~'. industry, due to its exposure to the freeway and .. its proximity to the school campu~ I l:. Commercial land is less susceptible to land '...'.:1:. absorption analysis due to changing market forces ..J and Monticello's place in the regional ~.. marketplace. Based upon the current i' population/commercial land ratios, available ,. i commercial land as defined in the proposed land use plan should be adequate for more than twenty fi ~ears. While this may seem overly cauti~us, it is J _i-- Important to reserve adequate commercmllands ....:. in appropriate locations for the long term. I Commercial viability, at least in contemporary J ~na.rkets: ~s highly location sensitive. Therefore, ...: It IS cntIcal to make sure the development of ;m incompatible land uses does not encroach into the 1 ':; .. areas which will be needed for commercial land IU use well into the future. -~II 11 _~I ..11.1 JI -.1) it I The Highway 25 corridor from just beyond School Boulevard to the existing shopping areas north of 1-94 is planned to provide the primary commercial center for Monticello and the surrounding areas. This area can take the best advantage of contemporary shopping patterns and Monticello Comprehensive Plan Development Framework ,.,. commercial center development, as well as the access to the interstate and traffic volumes along Highway 25. Fine-tuning improvements to internal circulation will be necessary, as will two or three major intersection improvements at Highway 25, to accommodate current and projected traffic. The development of a convenient second-tier commercial area which makes use of frontage or other parallel roads in the commercial center will help the district flourish. TIle increased tmffic resulting from the residential and commercial growth in this area points to the need for a new industrial park area which is not dependent upon Highway 25 for access. Truck access to the freeway must be convenient and uncluttered to promote successful economic development. As Highway 25 traffic increases, and signals become more common, the attraction of the current developable industrial area will lessen. A concept land use plan is provided on the previous page which shows land use patterns and transportation improvements necessary to accommodate the pattem. Like any concept plan, it is intended to illustrate land use relationships rather than specific land uses for specific parcels. It should be used as a guide for the application of more detailed land use implementation techniques, slIch as zoning or subdivision regulations. Land Use Summary Land use and Transportation improvements go hand in hand as the community grows and evolves. The land use plans and discussions above focus on transportation as much as land use 1-;u ~ II ~~ ' h !z~ ~ ~ ~ tJ ~ m '\ . ---zu . - SWcnO O~~~ = ~~r~~ ~ ~hw c::c::t:~~~Z ;~ >;/$ ~ ~ ~ (J) ~ <( 0 A ' 1f)f/,//JA. - -' J 1-!t1- IC \117/ _ U W Z c:: I- 'R ~ "" "'~ '7/ ffi~owWI-::> JE] /'g ~~ A^. ~ I- ~ ~ <;1 ~ 3 ~ f:::Ir ~~ ,VIII )' w''" iN! c:: 00 0 0 0 ~ F2i,:Ii;ffi:L-<c'V ;; <( u ~ 2 U z Z/ .@7Ji.:'4B!1 ' ~ >-t: )if g ~ 0111 A~:I LI _.~ /.~ H II~ ~\ A" jj/ (E" p I~ JI! - ~ "1--, Y/ff Ii ---< ~1'1!J ': c~1 . U .;.;~~'~h iJ;;, ~ ,if, J! . (/ ~.._".~ "''''&:'11 'n. JIJ J I~~~ r/f{jf' ~ '{ff/1. 1 f!1fi!1iiJ~:: ~ ~J~' ffl!,L g ~~ s ~ ,". ~ tJ ?i:. ~ f---., ~~- .. r:::::-,'L -.l ::- WJli~IV ! ~~J.:-J-~ i ,'Wi@,l",,;J';2;1'i '1.!fJj ': ~ It, j - ;I,~~g; _ . ~ ~ i'It ;stjf3"tJ5 ~i ~ ,/(~\II it! It,~ · m-"r;t f3 ,~'Iio \ 7 ~ r TjJ"" """ ;ff[/'~~gT [II ~:' ____to" 1f'.1-1'1 I ~ s =#.-J v r _.' :: :: .:...-.' J::I 'r 7J ::--1 __{"_ S ; , rlt~- -',~ ~~P'" ~ j#U'-'- - - _L ''*,. ._....... 1",",,1 ,;T.,~" ';./ I --'-- .,._----.J_ ____._L I . 11 I' I ;. t I' I Ii ~ ~- ~ .' , .. I , I~ I~ l~ '., o - OJ U ~ C o ~ ..... en ro Q) ..c ....... :::J o (j) -:::r- .~ c- .,.... 1 ~ r-- , r= = ::::. =- - :=::: g;; . <:::II .. ~ ::J. Y...r: .-;T/ ~J -7/ /Im:: .~ ,,- ,--I ~ . . . . ~ ..~~_(.......... :~~ I .. ~ .' .: .... ." / .; ~ ,/ ,)' . __.--:-- J ,~'- .-~- . ./1 .~ ./' lit ~ ' ., '........ ,~~ 'l(, (f~ .p I .. i n"'{' e."" ~ -1~-..:.::.... 0 ? ~ 'V ~s ./'_. .i KS..:~.. .~~ ..' / ../" ~~ ---' - ~. .----" Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99 8. Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision within the 1-2 Zoning District to allow the subdivision of an industrial parcel into two lots. Applicant: Greg Ebert. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Greg Ebert has applied for a lot split to permit the subdivision of an existing platted industrial parcel into two lots. The parcel is currently an "L" shaped lot at the comer of Oakwood Drive (County 117) and Dundas Road. The corner portion is occupied by an existing building (the Martie Farm Store). The proposed subdivision incorporates a new property line which turns east from the original line to avoid the existing building, then turns back west to include the entire south portion of the lot. Property lines which have internal jogs such as this one are typically discouraged due to the possibility offuture property line disputes. A problem with the parcel as designed is that the jog in the property line provides for just an 18.4 foot setback from the existing building corners, and even less from a small building extension. The required side yard setbacks in the 1-2 District are 30 feet. The subdivision should be redesigned to comply with all required setbacks on both parcels. To avoid the extreme jog which the proper setbacks will impose, another solution would be to narrow the proposed building lot to approximately 115 feet from Dundas Road all the way to a point beyond the existing Martie building, at which point it could turn to meet the full width of the remaining parcel. The proposed building would need to be redesigned to fit the revised lot, but this will be necessary to meet setbacks anyway. Separate from the lot split, the applicant will be pursuing a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage in the upcoming month. The necessary information for the CUP application was not available for the February public hearing notice requirements. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the lot split, subject to a condition that the subdivision be redesigned to eliminate jogs in the lot line and provide proper setbacks to the adjacent existing building. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision, based on a finding that it does not comply with required setbacks of the 1-2 District. 3. Motion to table action on the subdivision, subject to the submission of additional information. -7- ~"'~!Fi~~~~ ~~G~~ =" ,-_. 7j~'~~~~',z~~ ~~$:~ . ~~~~"'''''''' . t fJ" ~}11h j c I:/.. . -~/YJ' o~ ~ !!f/IJ:r/ ~ " ~ "- ,.,j/'Jil. ~ 'f.Ji)!; ~ [WI'~ ~t.irrl.~ ~ ~ ~~ --..........t /'/' ry. 'J &:,..~ liJfl/ ~~ l)' " ~ ~ 'j fir,; / 'J} 'o,j '-- .. ~~ fj.':fr'~ j ~~!ilflJl;'~d" ~~~?'R'~.'~ - lat lII!jJ. r-,.. -, v:t'. ..~h ~X!Jt "-.'F ~... ~r..< ~ _____ 1>OO\i1~~" './ Ill'fr.A.'( ..\ ~k ~ 7J ~ ~~ ~J ~~~~~ j W,<}'.,., 1fIlf~ I f77 -.:. N,.;: 5,~" ~ r).. ~ =-- HrGl-niAr - "loI..... 7 ~ . . "r. WfI :; J I ~ ::z -:- G f7 ~ ~ J)I ... ~"I .... ~ <: =-__ --- ~ l:"lI"!'ttJ ~ '1<., 1 --..l ~ . - :. :- "~~'/ ~~t-I1_______ ~.. '. p S . . ~ " ., ., "'" / ~ ~' ft.1) l-- J= ~ 1 ~ IROKL~ 1 Vl sn J)k;/ ~ · · I' I' . J <h ....., 'A i ~~~" ( "#~ . ~ g, : - ~'~. . ~~ . . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ 11 u ~~~{ L- ~;::;..." I.' f<- Q. ff ' ./ ri I' · '. · I 2 l' ~ I --- I ~ JJJ EST:;'" S C H 0 --- .. .1. ;::::::: .!..I.. o' ,L t .'\:!J.I:;:)ll' '," 01' . ) ~ f-bI".. '.\ .. ~ i".~ 1 \.-" I 1 - A 0.- ~,;<~. -; '. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1';"'0 "~." ~ '::f- ~ ~ ~" O'~~LJ]I1f'\ ~~ ----~ l~~ ~ ---..:. l\' .J" __~&l;~'" t:!j:~, v ~ .!~.'C .f.:t'lo! ~'. 83' r,. ~. ., .; )..oJ,~.~ ~ ~ t. t r "^'< ~ ,I .-x~~. . .,.... ., ~". ~ . ~"---- ............. ~ '\ I \ · .<. Y.).. 1,I..L.Tr 1~ ... .:. · I...... .,.~., L____ ~ ~ ~ Z - ~ -X/:: i ~." .I.I.J. ~tl,J.! 'J' 'I.r. ft1 ~'I'J. . ' t~ '" \, ~'':;\~, Iv ~ ,:. ~: ~12f- 41:h ~f.1. rr:. .,,~:r.:~~' -=::"., . ---. I ~. · ~ ~ . ~ . t Jr -. ~':-~'-----=~ -:-~- f? I ~I Y .. ~. -1-1 I~.. rH " " " IltI."\"~ . --rr ,....-r,~ I T~JTTC 't-,\ Exhibit A .. Site Location R< +- . I I I I i P _-' I r j I I I i ~ I ~ I C2 I ~ i (j I ~ : I ~ I 8 /5 ~ i I ~ I 1 C3 I ~ I I i I I I i I I \ I I, I I I I I I I I I I I . J. ~J~ ," .t"'/ ,.,J~: .:..( ,.,;). .-1;j.J4Q~ - ----------~-----_. :;QIIro(.:I LilI'.. ..~ J ~iI~ I~'ltl"l OUNDAS EAST fII(WIlN ll'wl" ht~ .t. .~ j 392, r ~ 11"1..11' '.lUori(H1 1: "! _, ii3-:08--------~-; ----------;59-:00-------- I . ~ : I '" r-----~-----., I! I' ~ I : ~ OAKNOOD !l:. ..: If' ... L : i I '" . --I ~l il S 88'37'4S' E I ~ ~I ~ " .30..00 I ""III[ ..I :. ~.'f4ot!~ I ~ ~I . "'" ~ ~ I PARCEL A I ~ I ~ i i " 2.06 ACRES I 2 I ..., I ~ . .. I I I~.- '" ~ ! i . ,'- ~ I ~ I: ~ I ........,,,... ~:. -, '1 E.(:sTJ.o..t; ,. '-'l I I ,"no:,.; I .... I .., "I .. . oj. i I T -~~~6,t'; ~ARCEL I , t. <; / I ~..... / 2.':SAtRES i I LOT I i ~ r 1 I I I : ~ : : " ;. I ~ :_1_______ ______ _________~i~ ~ ~ ~ :t L:"'f Pf;l ~,l:pr;(;rI. rE5:~:f-~i.;>l 1./:'::.!fJ l.~~"It\jt 'I. ~r . ! \ T S 8" '21 '35' E 256 00"1'" PC< 0':;;;;;'''. I!'. 68 I ~ I " . " N~89'2I'35' ~ \ ....~~4<P~~~J!'~~..-,;,;.-r ': (I I l ;~$~~~.o:..v",.I'" "" ....~'ti"1 ~I ~' I r ~ I' I ~ : I I ~ I, I I ) I:: >0 1 ~ In I I ~ ":; I I l ~ ~II I \ ~ I ~ ....~ I I } k " 1 ~ :'"' I I ~ Fl j '; ~ ti: I ~ :.:: I \ I - I ~ I: I I : L__________--J .i~.oQ/ &.':,;:;1"1( J(":!I-=" ~!'I(' ~ I: I i ~ __~_~---~ .... ."If-----:-.--.-,""."'_"-,"",,- -.---.-- 1 ~,~ I I I I I , 1 I ;8 I I I . I I I. I I I BLOCK ,:-_"" ~~~)"?O".:J ~ ~ #K~'-"'~~ /,....,p~~r.4";.pt: .......-9.....:.-cl I N 89'21'1J' ;( s. 'l;;R'.t/f ('F taf 1_ ~::u J ~l!t.r.,. ~:o,( r(~;..~.:;Jf 1S': I : I KLEIN FARMS GunG T B >0, . ROAD INDUSTRI AL 2 '" ... ~ >:: ~ 3 1~ ,. o ~n ~~ .......:::....:.:...~.:~. -r-;... ~~ ;;-;-~ ~l'I' -;:::" . . ~~ "'.- ,. O. .,.N [ Exhibit B - Site Survey - - - - - - -- - ~ - ---------- -............... - - - -- - - _. fIII1it~.:.rc.O'I-"OC'i.JCo''I"~It.lV$'/It".l. ... DUNDAS I I I I i ~ -' I I j I I I i ~ I ~ l"-tl~ 1 ~ I ~ ; I ~ I 8 I a ~ i I ~ I II C3 I ~ ~ I I i I I I i I ~ I \ I I , I I I I I I I I I I I __ ~------- -~ ------- EAST 392. r-l----~~~~~~~---~----~---- I " 223,08 -I- ~ I i I ' .. lis' .t. : I ,. r--t---~----., :! " ~, ": , ,I '" I ~ OAKNOOD ~ ' I t- il,. ~ L+I : ~, 1 '588'37'45" I I _ :, ~ " 30.00 . I I ~ ~I ~ "'''~" I' I ~ 51" ,~, I ~'!IPARCEL A ~ : I ~:; ~'I: f!? I ~ I 2.06 ACRESt I I .... I; 11 I .. ! i I ,. : I '" q, I I ~ !~ .1: ~ ": I """" ..""",,~ ,I r ! ' ! I to' I T i>:~{t'. PARCEL f : I : 'g :.,s 2.45 ACRES : I LOT ! I 1 , !~" I ! K I ~ . ~ i : l_l_____________~______~_~ ~ ,,; i I! t,. _" ~= I",f-f""''''' O!I(~"'~.';N /J~:.U? ll.flol!"r 1. . \ T ,'. , ," ."'. -:\'"'j", ". "'C,","" lJ',69 I ~ \ S89"2J"35"E 256.00' ... ';IN:89'2J"3s,"/1 \ ....~~.,~~~.f!'r~~f:t'"...,. .,\'." I I ;~.:r~~;o;.'~'/ lit. I It I r ~ l' I, I ~ I ~ I I ~ I, I I ) I;:" I . I I ~ ~;I I , 0\ ~ I I f l(,J ~ I ~ = I ~ I<l 's I I , " I } in' I I ~ :': I I ~ FJ I I ': \ ....' I I ) <:>, I , =t: I I ~ I; I I I, I I ,I I I: 'I ----------. I: I 1t;Ij:oUIa.:t;JoI;j('''~,"'>('''' : I I '"I i 4>"\01 . l~---=-=- -.: -, - -.~I.1:~J7r_!:.~~;r ~ .~~~~ ~ 1 . . ~~ ~" tJO.l( 17' .IN jJ'U .u:"Q.t1"-J~:).lI ~-.I'4C~".,:>r;..('J,;oY ~ ~ P..-.:::...............,..=-- ,/~p~.:'.,.-R!-9<:: "pA<'..e.G: , I I, I I I BLOCK I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I _...J ~ :-~ KLEIN N89'2J'JJ' '!I f 5If ~~~ ~ lCf f. *-~ , I-:r"'~U'< tt"":...U:;H J84 I \ FARMS OUTLOT B ROAD INDUSTRI AL 2 0\ ... ~ i': ~ 3 :"i ~u~~"'''''~....:.'" -r-;-_ ~~ ~.:.:r:~"" ~~ . . 9>3 I ~,-,. 0, ,,=I Exhibit C - Alternat~ Lot Split - by staff . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/02/99 9. Discussion on five of the most important items to be considered for the North Anchor/Bridge Park. Also namin!! two Planning: Commission members to the North Anchor Planning Group. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the Joint Meeting on January 20, 1999, each Board and Commission was asked to discuss five of the most important items to be considered for the North Anchor/Bridge Park at their next regular meeting. -9- . . . FIVE TOP PRIORITIES FOR THE NORTH ANCHOR Planning Commission Please use this form as a worksheet to select five priorities you would like to accomplish with the development of the North Anchor area. At the meeting each Commissioners choices will be discussed and then one list of five items will be compiled to submit to the North Anchor Subcommittee. There will also be two Planning Commissioners selected to attend the subcommittee meeting. Please consider volunteering. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. q/\\ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/02/99 10. Discussion on lelll!th of terms for Plannin~ Commission Members. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: It was recommended by the City Council to extend the term of office for the Planning Commission. It is currently set at one year terms. It is the recommendation of staff to change the City Ordinance (2-1-1) to: The term ofthc regular members shall be for three (3) years and shall be staggered so that no more than two members' term expire in a given year. All regular terms shall expire at the first City Council meeting of the new calendar year. In order to accomplish this goal each member will be asked to volunteer for one, two or three year terms. After this first term is completed the next terms will be three years. The terms will be staggered in the following manner: A. two members will have three year terms B. two members will have two year terms c. one member will have a one year term B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the change from the one-year term to a staggered three-year terms, as recommended by the City Council. 2. Motion to table the action on the change of the terms until the submission of additional information. -10- . . . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 2,1999 Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Herbst 1. Call to order 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 5, 1999. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the I-I Zoning District to allow COw location of a wireless antenna placement on an existing tower. Applicant: MCTC - Minneapolis Cellular Telephone Company. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a zoning district amendment from A-O, Agricultural-Open Space to R-4, Mobile Home Park, to allow the expansion of the Kjellberg West Mobile Horne Park. Applicant: Kjellberg's Inc. 7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage PUD approval within the Monticello Orderly annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development, Inc. 8. Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision within the 1-2 Zoning District to allow the subdivision of an industrial parcel into two lots. Applicant: Greg Ebert. 9. Discussion on five of the most important items to be considered for the North Anchor/Bridge Park. Also name two Planning Commission members to the North Anchor Planning Group. 10. Discussion on length of terms for Planning Commission Members. 11. Adjourn. . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 5, 1999 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith. Also Present: Council Liaison Clint Herbst, Mayor Roger Belsaas Staff Present: Steve Grittman and Jeff O'Neill Absent: None 1. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 1. 1998. Rod Dragsten asked for clarification on the vacation of Hart Boulevard and was informed that nothing west of Hart Boulevard is being vacated at this time. ROY POPILEK MOVED AND RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 1, 1998 REGULAR MEETING AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Chair Frie asked that an update on the joint meeting of the MOAA, the City and the township be added as item #6b. 4. Citizen Comments There were no citizen comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Commercial Preliminary Plat for "River View Square" within the PZM Zoning district. Applicant: Richard E. Williamson. Steve Grittman presented the staff report eXplaining that the applicant had previously come before the Planning Commission regarding an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow restaurants in a PZM zone. The City approved the ordinance amendment. The applicant is now proposing to develop the site which is located at the northeast quadrant of County Road 39 and County Road 75 and is requesting approval of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat consists of four lots, all in excess of2 acres and all meeting the requirements for the PZM Zoning District. Steve Grittman pointed out the private drive -1- . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99 from County Road 75 between Lots 2 and 3. It was noted that the staff has made an attempt to limit access from County Road 75. However, the county had approved the driveway access and it does meet all county requirements. Other items covered in the staff report included sidewalks/pathways, easements and future development. The staff feels that there may be some future PUD development. In a PZM Zoning District commercial uses are allowed under a conditional use permit. The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Exhibit Z. Roy Popilek asked about the width of the easement and was informed that it was 40 feet. Questions were also raised about the access from County Road 75 and what MoDot and county plans are for improvements to County Road 75. . Chair Frie then opened the public hearing. Dan GassIer, representing A Glorious Church spoke asking about the drainage, screening and landscaping plans. He noted that the church is in discussion with the City regarding a drainage easement on the church property. He questioned whether the easement size imposed on this development would apply to the easement that the church is negotiating with the City. He was concerned that the church not be tied to the same easement requirements as that of the proposed plat. The staff indicated that each property is suppose to provide the means to handle the nmoff from their property and that development on one property cannot increase the flows to adjacent properties. It was pointed out that A Glorious Church would have further opportunity to discuss drainage concerns at the time the individual lots in the plat would develop. Marty Campion, Otto & Associates, spoke for the developer, stating that they were in concurrence with the report of Mr. Grittman except for the issue of the private drive. The developer felt that this was very important to the plat and should not be removed. Don Lundquist, a neighboring property owner asked what kind of commercial uses are allowed in the PZM zoning district. The staff went through some of the allowable uses. Mr. Lundquist was informed that a fast food restaurant would not be allowable in a PZM Zoning District. However, sit-down restaurants would be an allowable use in this district. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . Richard Carlson stated that the proposed median appeared to end at the mid-point of the private driveway. Marty Campion responded that this had been discussed with the county and the county was proposing to extend the median further to the east. Marty Campion stated that while the county had given approval to the driveway location, the developer still needed to get the necessary permits from the county for the work. The Planning Commission also asked about the width of the private driveway and whether that was adequate for the traffic it would be handling. The width of the driveway is 30 -2- . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99 feet curb to curb. However it is an access driveway and would not have any parking so the 30 feet should be adequate. Chair Frie addressed Mr. Williamson on the issue of the sidewalk and pedestrian underpass on County Road 75 and if the developer was receptive to that. Mr. Williamson indicated that he was not aware of the pedestrian underpass and questioned whether the developer's participation would be in the form of granting an easement or whether he would be expected to participate in the cost of the construction of the underpass. . Chair Frie asked what the development plans were at this time for the lots. The developer indicated that a convenience store is being proposed for Lot 2, Block 1 but there were no firms plans for the other lots. The lots were being designed in such a fashion as to make them amenable to a number of uses. This again raised the issue of whether 30 feet was adequate width especially for any tractor trailer combinations. Steve Grittman responded that the width would be adequate but the turning radius would need to be reviewed. John Ryan with the development group stated that they were flexible on the driveway width and would comply with the city engineer's recommendation on this item. There was some discussion on the traffic patterns and if there would be any problem with cut through traffic to any residential development that may occur. Richard Williamson stated that the traffic along the private driveway would flow to all parcels in the plat. It was suggested that cross easements be put in place for the lots. Don Lundquist asked if any consideration had been given to making the private drive one way. Richard Williamson stated that they had looked at that but felt the traffic pattern would be better with two way traffic. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RIVER VIEW SQUARE BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE DESIGN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS NOTED BELOW: 1. INCLUSION OF A PATHWAY EASEMENT WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT. 2. INCLUSION OF A SIDEWALK OR PATHWAY ALONG THE COUNTY HIGHWAY 39 FRONTAGE BETWEEN HART BOULEVARD AND COUNTY HIGHWAY 75. 3. CITY ENGINEER APPROVAL OF THE GRADING AND UTILITY PLANS. 4. THE WIDTH OF THE PRIVATE DRlVE TO BE DETERMINED IN COOPERA nON WITH THE CITY ENGINEER. . .... -.)- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99 5. A CROSS EASEMENT AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE FOR LOT I, BLOCK 2 TO HAVE ACCESS RIGHTS THROUGH THE PRIVATE DRIVE. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage pun approval within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development, Inc. Steve Grittman presented the staff report on the proposed 220 acre development lying between T.H. 25 and County Road 117. It was noted that the property is contiguous to the City and lies in the area covered in the orderly annexation agreement. It is an area of contention in that the City believes it use should be low density residential while the MOAA Board believes the property should be designated for industrial use. There were a number of changes from what was shown in the concept plan. It was noted that the ponding area is greater than what was shown in the concept plan. The increase in ponding area reduced the number of lots by 30. An EA W (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) was done and it was determined that no EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) would be required. It was pointed out that there is a five acre parcel in the development that is proposed for commercial use. Steve Grittman addressed the concern about the street layout especially the length of the streets. The connection to T.H. 25 from the plat which was shown in the concept plan has been eliminated from the preliminary plat. The City would prefer to see the connection remain in the plat providing it is approved by MnDot. Steve Grittman noted that the Public Works Director and City Engineer expressed concerns about the street design. There are 22 acres of park designated which meets the 10% land dedication requirement. The 22 acres does not include any of the ponding area and it was the recommendation of the Public Works Director that internal ponds be privately owned. Chair Frie questioned whether Planning Commission consideration of this plat was premature. The MOAA Board is in a stalemate on their land use plan and since this is an area of contention, perhaps the Planning Commission should table action on the plat until direction is given by the MOAA Board. It was suggested that by approving the preliminary plat it may force the MOAA Board to make a decision. Rod Dragsten asked about Item #9 on Exhibit Z which dealt with access to Outlot C. This access would be for maintenance purposes and would not be an access intended for public use. Chair Frie noted that in a number of ponding areas the lots lines meet at the pond and in those instances who is responsible for the maintenance of the ponding area. Roy Popilek asked about the impact the commercial property would have on the -4- . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99 infrastructure. Steve Grittman indicated that the commercial flows from the five acre parcel would not significantly impact the sewer/water system. Robbie Smith wondered what would happen to the property ifit received Planning Commission and City Council approval but was turned down by the MOAA Board. Jeff O'Neill responded that the land would remain in limbo. There was a lengthy discussion on whether the matter should come before the Planning Commission since the MOAA has not resolved the issue of a land use plan for the orderly annexation area. Would approving the preliminary plat for residential use make the MOAA Board more rigid in their position that the property should be designated for industrial use. Mayor Belsaas stated that Planning Commission approval of the preliminary plat may give the developer false hope. Steve Grittman argued that the Planning Commission needs to carry out the planning end of the work and not worry about whether other entities give approval. The Planning Commission should address any concerns about the preliminary plat and not anticipate or allow what happens later by another authority to guide their planning. Chair Frie stated the Planning Commission had three options: 1) approve the preliminary plat; 2) deny the preliminary plat or 3) table the preliminary plat and he felt that there was legitimate reason for tabling the plat. He emphasized that the Planning Commission has not done their planning based on expectations of what the council would or 'would not approve. . Chair Frie then opened the public hearing. Horst Graser from Gold Nugget spoke regarding the land use issue. While he is aware that the MOAA may not approve the project they are proceeding based on the assumption that this project meets the City's land use plan. Chair Frie indicated that it is the position of the MOAA Board that until there is an approved land use plan they will not approve any annexation. Richard Carlson suggested that perhaps there should have been a moratorium until such time as a land use plan was in place. There was lengthy discussion on the position of the MOAA Board and whether any action taken by the Planning Commission would impede progress on a land use plan. While staff suggested that the Planning Commission should follow the same procedures that they followed on all other properties in the orderly annexation area, the Planning Commission noted that this was the only property that had corne before the Planning Commission where there was a question on what the use should be. . Horst Graser gave a presentation on the proposed development. He covered what attempts they would make to attract upscale housing. He stated that there will be covenants for the development and the covenants will set forth requirements for roof pitch, elevation, color and materials. He also noted that white vinyl posts will be placed at the rear of the lots abutting the park so that there is a clear delineation between park land and the lot. Horst Graser stated that the major change to the concept plan was a result of the ponding requirements. Since they are restricted to 2.5 cefs of flow they had -5- . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99 to increase the ponding area which resulted in a loss of approximately 30 lots. Of the 545 units there are 196 townhomes and 42 detached townhomes which is the same as the shown in the concept plan. . In reviewing the conditions for preliminary plat approval, Mr. Graser commented on Item #4 which required street connections to the northwest and southwest portions of the plat. The developer was not adverse to the additional connections as long as it did not compromise the integrity of the plat. On the proposed access to T.H. 25 (Item #6) Mr. Graser stated the access was removed from the preliminary plat because MnDot did not recommend an additional access. As to Item #7, consideration of a frontage road connection, Mr. Graser stated that feasibility and cost need to be considered and he wanted further direction from the City staff on this item. He was most concerned about the additional trail/pathway requirements outlined in Items #13, #14 and #15. These items would add approximately 4,000 feet of trail and since this would be outside the perimeter of the development it should not be made a condition of his plat approval. He felt that this was more a regional trail and that the connections should be the responsibility of the state, county or city but not the developer. As it is the developer would be spending approximately $20,000 for construction of trails/pathways within the development. Steve Grittman responded that he did not consider the additional pathway requirements as being a regional system rather it would allow the ready access for the residents in the northeast and northwest portions of the proposed development. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission questioned the developer on various aspects of the development including lot size, information on the type of housing that would be going into the development and what amenities the developer would be providing that would bring in upper scale housing. Richard Carlson stated that the holding ponds do not have an aesthetic value unless they retain water on a permanent basis. Horst Graser indicated that the holding ponds would probably be dry a portion of the time but that those lots abutting the ponds and park areas would command a higher price because many buyers desire space and separation from adjacent properties. Richard Carlson asked whether the entire 220 acres was proposed for a PUD or only the townhomes. Mr. Graser responded that the PUD was for the entire 220 acres. The proposed entry monuments were also brought up with questions about the design of the monuments and who is responsible for maintenance. Steve Grittman stated that the staff had discussed this item and would set up a policy dealing with design and maintenance concerns but that has not yet been done. The Park Board has reviewed the proposed park area for this development. The developer stated that he did not want to see anything other than passive play areas for the park land since he felt that it would take away from the upscale housing. . -6- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99 CHAIR FRIE MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD UNTIL THE FEBRUARY MEETING BASED ON THE OUT COME OF THE JOINT MEETING WITI-I THE MOAA BOARD TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE INPUT AND DIRECTION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM. Motion carried unanimously. 6b. Update on ioint meeting with MOAA Board Jeff O'Neill summarized what had let up to the proposal for a joint meeting with the City Council, township and MOAA Board. The MOAA Board had requested that the City take out the Southwest Plan as part of the Orderly Annexation Agreement. Should the MOAA corne to an agreement on a land use plan, the City would then have to pass zoning an1endments to reflect the changes. Dick Frie announced that he would be resigning from the MOAA Board after the Wednesday, January 6, 1999 meeting. Chair Frie stated that he felt it very important for the Planning Commission to be kept informed of what took place at the MOAA meetings. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:45 P.M. AND RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion passed unanimously. Recording Secretary -7- . . . Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99 5. Public Hearine - Consideration of a reauest for a Conditional Use Permit within the 1-1 Zoning District to allow co-location of a wireless antenna placement on an existine tower. Applicant: MCTC. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: MCTC (Minneapolis Cellular Telephone Company) is requesting approval ofa Conditional Use Permit to place an antenna array on the existing US West wireless communications tower currently located on the Bondhus property on East Broadway. The MCTC antennas would be mounted below the US West antennas, and the shelter would be constructed within the existing fenced enclosure. The shelter is a 12 foot by 1 8 foot structure, 9 feet high, and would be constructed of rock aggregate panels. The applicant has indicated that the area is screened in part by existing evergreen trees, but will be partially visible for west bound traffic on Broadway (County Highway 75). No additional construction relating to the US West monopole tower would occur with this project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for MCTC, based on a finding that the co-location meets the intent of the City's wireless antenna regulations, subject to a condition that low evergreen shrubs are added to the east and north side ofthe enclosure to enhance the landscaping and screening of the ground facilities. 2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe co-location, based on a finding that the additional antennas and ground equipment will further compromise the aesthetics of the East Broadway area. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to the submission of additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval ofthe CUP with the screening condition listed in Alternative I. The intent of the Wireless Antenna ordinance which was adopted recently was to encourage, if not require, co-locations of antennas where possible, in an effort to minimize the proliferation of wireless towers in the community. This application appears to meet the objectives ofthe ordinance, and the additional screening at the base would enhance the most visible portion of the installation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Detailed Facility Plan -1- -::;rre ttJ. QJesftON r , z ' SCHOOL R1 <8> 5'\ Exhibit A - Site Location . EXH~{T B . .TO ANTENNA SIm SUBLEASE AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION OF SUBLEASED PREMiSES Description of Site I Site Sketch P. ROo rr . ;( c.t< ..r L(.s. I",.J~. l.el1..Sl!J .J "), '1rC',\ -<5xqo' ~ rt ~~ :6''?- Exhibit B - Site Plan TENNAS ~IMUTI-l) . , .. US WEST , - MONOPOLE _. ._~ - ..-'.111. ....~. I~ .........._. IONOPOLE AZIMUTH) Fi Nt!.E1> A-I!$.+ I ~ :. tlo' k~ y...;t,S J WI P c.u LE J.J. 1> b ,;12.. . "---. US WEST ANTENNAS (SETA 0 165" AZIMUTH) 1/2" .' ~ 32' I d Facility Plan . . . Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a zonin!!: district amendment from A-O. Ae:ricultural-Open Space to &-4. Mobile Home Park. to allow the eXDansion of the Kiellben; West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: Kjellberg's Inc. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Kjellberg's Inc. has requested an annexation of about 60 acres of property west of the current Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park, and a rezoning of that land to R-4. The rezoning would accommodate an expansion ofthe park to provide an additional 136 mobile home sites. The current Kjellberg West Park accommodates approximately 170 to 180 mobile home sites. The existing park was recently approved for annexation and utility service by the MOAA and the City of Monticello. Land Use To the south ofthe proposed site is the "Dunes" rural subdivision of approximately 130 one acre single family lots. To the east is vacant land, part of which is owned by the City of Monticello, known as the "Remmele" site. To the north and west is other vacant land, all of which is within the limits ofthe MOAA and part of the City's "Southwest Area Study" section of the Comprehensive Plan. This City's Comprehensive Plan calls for much of this land to be guided for mid-density residential, with its primary access from the extension of School Boulevard which would cut through the north portion ofthe parcel in question. The City's interpretation of mid-density has typically been townhouse-style attached units in small building clusters, at densities of 4-8 units per acre. The City's R-2 District is the most applicable zoning district designation for this land use. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for attention to housing market in Monticello which emphasizes the need for a full range of housing opportunities. The Plan states that the community has traditionally been fully supplied in the lower price categories, and that the City's housing emphasis should be on supplying mid-range and higher end housing. At approximately 2.3 units per acre, the proposed project appears to be in conflict with the City's planning for this section of the MOAA. Project Design If the City is interested in proceeding with an R-4 designation, there is a specific set of requirements for mobile home park development in Monticello. This review is required to pass the project on to the MOAA. The agreement between the City and Township which established the current MOAA requires that the City conduct its review of a proposed project, whether a plat or a site plan review, prior to MOAA Board consideration. There are a few requirements of the site plan review section which can not be evaluated at this time. -2- . Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99 These include drainage and landscaping which are not shown on the submitted concept plan. The streets and sites appear to meet or exceed the minimum requirements for the R-4 District. However, there are some issues which are not in compliance with thc City's planning objectives or the R-4 District requirements. Southwest Area Plan The Southwest Area Plan illustrates a major collector street, the westerly extension of School Boulevard, extending through the north portion of the parcel in question. The proposed site plan does not accommodatcthis roadway. The School Boulevard extension is an important part of the City's transportation system planning by creating an efficient east-west connection between the school campus area, the future community park area to the west of the Kjellberg property, and residential development in both portions of the City. Any land use proposed on this site should be designed to accommodate this roadway. It should be noted that an alternative alignment of this road could be constructed to the north of the expansion area. Access . The project as designed would require the new development area to gain access through the existing mobile home park, culminating in a single access point on Highway 25 for more than 300 residential units. To maintain traffic counts typical of a residential neighborhood, the minimum access to a collector (or higher function) street should be at least one access per 100 units. If plans for a mobile home park go forward, access must be increased to collector streets serving the development. Parkland The R-4 District requires that at least ten percent of the developed land be set aside for recreational use. The plans which have been submitted illustrate a total set aside of about 5 acres. However, most of that area (more than 3.5 acres) is pond area which would not qualify as recreational area according to the City's ordinance, or according to the City's normal application of its parkland dedication standards in platted projects. The requirements for recreation area will require additional attention before the City can approve any plans for a mobile home park. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of Rezoning to R-4, Mobile Home Park District 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based upon findings that the land use would be consistent with the existing mobile home park, and that trafTic from the development would not negatively impact existing development, subject to . -3-