Planning Commission Agenda 02-08-1999
.
.
.
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8,1999
7:00 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
1. Call to order
2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
3. Citizens comments.
4. 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.
5.
Continued discussion on five of the most important itcms to be considered for the North
Anchor/Bridge Park.
6. Adjourn.
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 02/08/99
4.
Continued Public Hearin2 - Consideration of a reQuest for a Preliminary Plat and
Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage pun aoproval within!: the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nug2et Development, Inc.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you know at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission, this item was again
continued to a Special Meeting on Monday, February 8, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. The Planning
Commission is asked to consider the information discussed at the special meeting at 5:30
p.m. on February 8, 1999, and determine whether or not to proceed with a
recommendation to the City Council on the preliminary plat ofthe Pine Meadows
Subdivision.
In the event that the Planning Commission prefers to obtain a recommendation from the
MOAA Board prior to its decision making then the Planning Commission should
continue this item to the April meeting. Continuation is necessary to the April meeting
as the MOAA Board meets to discuss the MOAA Plan one day after the March Planning
Commission Meeting.
The Planning Commission also has the option to move forward and make a
recommendation with regards to the preliminary plat utilizing the existing
Comprehensive Plan as their guide. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission
takes a proactive approach in dealing with this plat and essentially would be
communicating its view that the present Comprehensive Plan is appropriate and that it is
therefore proper at this time to forward this recommendation to approve the preliminary
plat to the City Council.
In conjunction with discussion of this project, the Planning Commission may wish to
consider taking the initiative to request that the City Council call for a Public Hearing; or
the Planning Commission could unilaterally call for a Public Hearing on proposed
changes to the MOAA Plan. Information obtained in the Public Hearing could prove
useful to the City in determining whether or not it wishes to change the Comprehensive
Plan to match the MOAA Plan. It seems prudent to make every effort too keep the two
plans consistent. Reviewing the Comprehensive Plan prior to MOAA approval might
help to provide the City representatives to the MOAA some valuable prospective as
representatives of the City. Ifthe Planning Commission were to call for a Public lfearing
on potential amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, it may be necessary to coincide
with the MOAA Agreement. The earliest that such a Public Hearing could be held would
be at the March meeting of the Planning Commission. This is one day prior to
consideration of this topic by the MOAA Board.
.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 02/08/99
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the preliminary plat based on findings noted in the previous
agenda item on this topic.
2. Motion to deny staff recommendations.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that this item be tabled if the Planning Commission prefers to have
MOAA input prior to preliminary plat approval. StafTrecommends that the preliminary
plat be approved if the Planning Commission believes that the current designation of this
area for residential use is proper and therefore there is no need to change plan, etc.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
See previous agenda items on this topic.
.
.
.
.
..i
"-
Council Agenda - 1/25/99
10.
Background for the City Council's joint 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 staff is providing additional information 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 Sit ver 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.
~:
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 Course 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.
,",
\l~' '~:
l
5
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, east of the YMCA
land, and west of the future Chelsea Road 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 YM CA 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 devclopment scenario. The
only issue related to a Public/Quasi Public designation would be the need for an
amendment to the MOAA Land 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 east 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
~(~
Council Agenda - 1/25/99
.'
both the City and the MOAA, direct this land for low density residential development.
As the City Council is aware, a PUD application was submitted for concept approval last
spring, and an EA W for residential development based on the concept plan was reviewed
last fall. The developer has submitted a preliminary plat application to the Planning
Commission, which continued its public hearing to February, pending information
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. ALTERNATIVE 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
conflict 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 will 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 Conflicts
Exhibit B - MOAA Draft Plan
.;
"<
,-\r2J
7
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnea.polis, MN 55426
612.541.4800
FAX 541-1700
6125411700 P.03/04
BA. Mittelsteadt. RE.
Bn:t A. Weist. P.E.
l'(tCr R.. Willenbring, P.E.
Don:lld W. Stern:!, RE.
Ronald B. ~ray. P.E.
.
JAN-22-1999 11:59
...
WSS
.....-...
& Associates. Inc.
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
Memorandum
To:
J~ff 0 'Neill, Deputy Administrator
City of Monticello
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.~
City Engin~er
From:
Date:
January 22,1999
Re:
Pine Meadows
Residential vs. Industrial Traffw 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 (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, Sixth Edition.
.
Use
Trips I Dav
Generation }tate rrrips/AcrelDay) Pine Meadows (220 Ac.)
Single Family 26.04 5720
Residential
Light Industrial 51.80 11396
Industrial Park 63.11 13884
Manufacturing 38.88 8553
Warehouse 57.23 12591
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.
.'
Minne4polis · St. Cloud
Infrtutr"llCtllre Engin,wl Pl4n7Ur1 F:\WPWIN\1010.7J\Ol2299-jo~
F.I1TIA1. OPPOlmJNITI EMPlOYER
.~~
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
612-541~OO
FAX 541-1700
6125411700 P.02/04
B.A. Mittdstead.t. P.E.
BIer A. Wew. P.E.
p~[l,~r R. Willenbring. P.E.
Donald W. SEan.. P.E.
Ronald. B. BQ}", F.E.
.
JAN-22-1999 11:59
...
WS8
.....-.
& Associates, Inc.
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
Memorandum
To:
Jeff O'Neill, Deputy Administrator
City of Monticello
Bret A. Weiss, P.E. ~~
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 currently 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 necessary 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 ofSt 00,000 to $250,000 would be reasonable to revise
the system and account for dollars previously spent that will not be utilized.
.
run
'A6
M inn e II pol is. St. C Iou J f:\WPWIH\IOIO.13
I11fr4Str"JI.cturB Engineen P!anrurs
EQUAL OPPORl11NITY F.MPT OYER
.
l~
.
.
JAN-22-1999 11:59
WSE & ASSOCIATES INC.
6125411700 P.04/04
.
The number of heavy vehicle (trucks) traffic that will be generated by the Industrial
type developments is significantly higher than Residential developments. Typically.
heavy vehicle traffic is 2% of total traffic for Residential and up to 15% of total
traffic for Industrial.
.
The pavement section to handle the additional heavy vehicle traffic will be
significantly more. thus adding additional cost to the construction of roadways.
.
Access to the development, especially onto high-speed roadways. would need to be
evaluated to accommodate slow-moving trucks turning onto high-speed roadways.
If you have any questions, or need any additional information on this topic. please let me know.
cp/nm
~~
F:\WPWIN\l 01 0.73\0 12299.jo2
TOTAL P.04
.
.
.'
,-
,-
~
~
.~
,
t
,-.;;-
aeny /-Ulllt=A.HIVII
t'cello Ur ..In......
Mon I Wdghl C.unlY,
USE PLAN
LAN 0 Dt<.f>-.F1"
Mo~
~....J"l.--JJ
M~,..':',.':",.l1J _
---'
DLOoIiD.ft&.1tJ
...........
1....;$.ft~"O'-'II)'
IS--.....
~.........
.... .....
1Z3........,
""
-B/1i \e> rr ~
~J\
\J .0.
.
Ocello, LLC.
10738 Hanson Boulevard NW
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Tel: (612) 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.
Respectfulfy,
Antho J. Emmerich
Chief Manager
.. Attachment
\\"\
January 22M. 1999
.
Monticello,
Minnesota
Oak Ridge Subdivision
Klein Fanns Subdivision
. Fact Sheet
.
~~{)
.
.
.
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 Fanus
. The land for the subdivision "Klein Farms" 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 town home 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 information
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.
'i~\
..,~~;~,;;:.~'i"':'('::J.j,it~;~~iii~':e:h!~"::ltZ~~~~.?~~ll"'.~"\".~..:.~N"!itI'N."U:!'>~~~"""'''-- -~-.--'lCY""'"'t.".'"
,01/22/99
14:51
NOVRK FLECK INC ~ 612 755 6311
001
GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT INC.
.
8857 Zealand Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, Minneaota 55445
(612) 424.4955
January 12, 1999
Tony Emmerich
Ocello, L1,C
10738 Hanson Blvd.
Coon Rapids, TvIN 55433
Dl;ar Mr. Emmerich:
.
In October of 1998, Gold Nugget Development, Tnc. purchased 220 acres located in Monticello
from you and your partners. Our stated objective then and today is to dev~lop this site as
residential. However, community policy and land use changes apparently initiated at the Council
h:vel are causing rt::sistanc~ in our eftort to process our proposed subdivision The Planning
Commission has tabled our hearing to await the outcome of The Orderly Annexation Board and
the City Council's action. 1 am extremely concerned over this sudden change in community
direction since it would have a substantial negative impact on our investment.
Gold Nugget Development, Inc. is not an industrial developer, nor do we intend to make an
exception 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 FalIDS phasing and uLility
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 PlaMing Commission and Council granted Concept approval for our entire site.
Bas~d on the facts outlined above, we felt secure in proceeding with the acquisition and became
fee owners in October of 1998 Towards the end of October, a city stafl' member sent me the
October 12 Council minutes in which Councilmember Clint Herbst asked staff to notify th~
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
.e
l-\A?-
.
'.
.1
')--
, .131/2'2/99
~,,:,:, .~"~.~;_.
14:51
NOVAK FLECK INC ~ 612 755 6311
Mr. Tony Emmerich
January 12. 1999
It is unfommate that eventS have evolved to a point wflere I have no choice but to put you on
notice that Gold Nugget Development, Inc. 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, Ine
002
\.\A.3
.
.
e:
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.
~,,~
Meeting of January 6, 1999
.
MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AHEAD
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. VOTE: 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 cu~ent 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. Halker 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: CARRlED UNANIMOUSLY.
.i
1
l-\ ~5
.
.
.
Frie requested that, prior to the end of the Board meeting, he would be allowed to address board
members. A motion was made by Denn, seconded by Frie approving the agenda with the
addition ofFfie's suggestion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
II. REVIEW - BOWERS GRAVEL MINING EA W (OTTER CREEK. LLC)
Salkowski gave an overview of the process of an Environnlental Assessment Work Sheet. He
stated the fonnat 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. Fonnal comments on the EA 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
many of the public concerns revolved around traffic issues.
Mr. Bowers and Mr. Chadwick presented a map of the location and reviewed the mining plans.
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 an 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 ofthe 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 ofthe air. He also stated if the 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 and
concerns which he felt he has addressed. He stated they plan to remain 50' back from Otter
2
\.\A{P
.'
.
.
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 Fingalsol1, County Highway Engineer, and Bill Cordell, Senior
Traffic Technician, 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 lchter - 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 W 'tacks in many areas regarding mining and recycling and includes
erroneous 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 tum into ground water. He
stated he would probably be trucking in water for that purpose from a hydrant. Beagert stated
3
~A~
.
.
.'
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 water 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 length of the permit? Is it atmually 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
community 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 detennine
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 conunents the public would like entered on the
EA W should be in writing and sent to the Platming and Zoning office in Buffalo by January 14,
1999. There is no action required at tlus 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
~-1C
. 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 atmexation, 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 ofthe 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 ifthere 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 RoIling 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 tIus time.
5
~'l~
.'
.
.
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 ajoint 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 reconunend. 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 COWlty 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
~,;).o
.
.
..i
_oJ
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 11, 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,
//~t\ '
/ Tom S kowski,
Joint Plalliling Board Administrator
7
~"d-\
i
.:101
~.....;.",*
.~.~. Developmem Framework Page 20
~-<' A 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.
D . dmost 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 foHowing adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan. Appropriate revisions
will be necessary to accommodate orderly growth
over the next several years.
--'"
--"!
."'.
- ,
i
:~
--<
I
~~
J
J
J
J
J
\,.
~
J
:~:
j
.~.
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
direct the City's stance on additional annexation
efforts. The ability to protect the Southwest
._)1onticello area for the uses shown in the long
MOllticello Comprehellsive Pia"
Development 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 reaIization of the City's housing goals is an
increased use of Planned Unit Development
design. This process allows flexibility in the
subdivision standards to pem1it 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 MonticeHo 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 inftll
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
fmancialmanagement 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.
~,'P-
"LJ
j , ~. ,,'
i"". ..
..
Developmelll Framework Page 22
The result of this policy would be "infill"
development of the existing service area. Infill is
often thought of as lot by lot building on
overlooked parcels. Here the term is used to
suggest the site by site development as yet
undeveloped land which is capable of being
served by existing infrastructure. The first tier of
lands within this area contain approximately 8 to
12 years of residential land supply, based on the
Comprehensive Plan's slow and fast growth rates,
respectively. Ondustrial land supply is
approximately 15 to 20 years, base on current
consumption rates, however, heavy industrial (as
opposed to light industrial) land is likely to be
consumed in less time. Much of the available
industrial land supply is programmed for light
industry, due to its exposure to the freeway and
its proximity to the school campu~
Commercial land is less susceptible to land
absorption analysis due to changing market forces
and Monticello's place in the regional
marketplace. Based upon the current
population/commercial land ratios, available
commercial land as defined in the proposed land
use plan should be adequate for more than twenty
years. While this may seem overly cautious, it is
important to reserve adequate commercial lands
in appropriate locations for the long term.
Commercial viability, at least in contemporary
markets, is highly location sensitive. Therefore,
it is critical to make sure the development of
incompatible land uses does not encroach into the
areas which will be needed for commercial land
use well into the future.
1;;1
lir~'~
h
t
'-
!
1 .
e;
1," I,.
_.
~I~: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 Plall
Developmeflf 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.
The increased traffic 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, such as zoning or subdivision
regulations.
Land Use Sununary
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
t{- ;),3
o
-
Q)
u
.-
........
c
o
~
........
en
ro
Q)
..c
........
:J
o
Cf)
.....J
<(.....J
1-<(
Z-
wI-
>-<( I- 0 aJ
w-
swwo
oO::W(f.)
<(I-O::W
0(/)>-0'::: .....J
o::a::l-r....J <(
.....JO(/)I-<(.....JZ
<(I-Z(/)O<(O
/"Y'OW za::a:: I-
tuWOWWl-:J
1-.....J.....J>02(/)I-
>'2::>-
a::OOOOO~
<(O.....J20ZZ
- - {
- -
; l 01111-
,-
/ ,.
/
i
,/ ~M
-'
..~J
..'
"
!
.(
.a
,
~/
....i."
C>
"
...'Ii'
;;
~"
~,;t~
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 02108/99
5.
Continued discussion on five of the most important items to be considered for the
North Anchor/Bridee Park.
The Planning Commission needs to continue discussion on the five most important items
regarding the North Anchor/Bridge Park.