Loading...
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.