Planning Commission Agenda 03-02-2020 (Joint Meeting) NO RTHW EST' ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC,
1;_,
r i
�p
4,150 Wsoin MeirnoHM liighway, Stem 320, GoWein VaHley, MN 55422
II Ism o irm m 763.957. 1100 We[)site- .irm c: II irm irm G irm .c:o ircn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
Mayor Stumpf and Monticello City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: February 26, 2020
RE: Monticello — Mielke/Jameson/Malone—
Concept PUD Review
NAC FILE NO: 191.07 — 2
PLANNING CASE NO:
PROPERTY ID: 155-011-000092; 155-500-123300; 155-115-001011;
(and parts of others)
Application and Project Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a
proposed concept plan for a Planned Unit Development on a series of parcels adjoining
the north side of 7t" Street, roughly between Fallon Avenue on the west and the Fallon
Avenue roundabout on the east. The applicants include the developer and four primary
property owners, including the "Malone" property (PID 1 55-01 1-000092), the "Jameson"
property (PID 155-500-123300) the City of Monticello (PID 155-115-001011), along with
a portion of a parcel currently owned by the St. Henry's Catholic Church (PID 155-115-
001010). Finally, a small corner of remnant park land is also included in the Concept
Plan at the northeast corner of Fallon Avenue and 7t" Street.
The parcels currently have a few scattered buildings, all of which would be removed.
The applicant has been working with the State of Minnesota to "delist" the parcels
and/or buildings from the National Register of Historic Places. The total PUD covers
approximately 10.25 acres in area. Access to future development on the property is
provided from Fallon Avenue via an internal private street.
The applicant has made five specific requests as a part of the City's consideration of
this project. A copy of that summary is included in this packet. A part of the applicant's
request involves disposition of City property at no cost to the developer, and process
aspects of the project's consideration. This memorandum focuses on land use
elements and related site improvements.
The proposed project consists of a 48 unit detached townhome development, a gross
density of approximately 4.5 units per acre. This would be considered a medium
density residential land use. The Comprehensive Plan designates much of the area for
residential uses ("Places to Live"), with a portion guided for institutional uses ("Places
for Community"). The Plan does not propose densities for residential development.
As noted above, there are a series of parcels that make up the development site. The
"Malone" and "Jameson" parcels are privately owned. The remnant park parcel at the
corner of Fallon and 7t" Street is owned by the City by virtue of the dedication of that
parcel for park purposes (that parcel actually extends across 7t" Street to include a
small sliver of land between the street and the apartment building.
A second city parcel extends from the Fallon Avenue roundabout to provide access into
the interior of the area, particularly for the Jameson property which is otherwise
landlocked (other than a private easement across the neighboring "Busch" property).
This City parcel, while it fronts along 7t" Street and the roundabout, provides only
technical frontage — the grade falls away steeply from the roundabout area, and
presents challenges and expense for construction of a connection.
As a result, the applicant has assembled the private parcels, and proposes to develop
these along with the city parcels and land from St. Henry's church, utilizing a long
single-entrance private street that gains access from Fallon Avenue on the west,
extending for approximately 1,300 feet to the east, terminating in a cul-de-sac on what
is currently the east end of the Jameson parcel. Detached townhome (or "patio home")
lots are arrayed along both sides of this private street.
For the project to proceed, there are a series of City land use approvals that will be
required:
o PUD Concept Review (the subject of this report). The project requires a PUD as
it proposes to develop a series of parcels that will have 48 units on individual lots,
common lot area, and a private street;
Further land use approvals would include the following:
o Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment reguiding the proposed residential
parcel from "Places for Community" to "Places to Live";
o Preliminary and Final Plats;
o Development Stage and Final Stage PUD.
o Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District;
The current proposal is for a PUD Concept Plan review, which is not a formal zoning
application, but is intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to get City feedback
on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning review and the
1
extensive supporting materials that such reviews require. The Planning Commission
and City Council will have the opportunity to review the project, ask questions of the
proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements raised by the project.
The neighboring property owners have been notified of the meeting, but it is not a
formal public hearing. This memorandum provides an overview of the project and will
serve as an outline for the discussion. No formal approval or denial is offered for a
Concept Review.
However, it is vital that Planning Commission and City Council members engage in a
frank and open discussion of the project benefits and potential issues. The Concept
Review process is most valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to
understand how the City is likely to look at the project and the potential issues it
presents. In this way, the subsequent land use and development details can be more
finely tuned to address City policy elements.
PUD Concept Review Criteria. The first stage consists of an informal Concept Plan
review which is separate from the formal PUD application which will follow the Concept
Review step. The Ordinance identifies the purpose of Planned Unit Development as
follows-
(1) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to
provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-
residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more
creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and
marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a
development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable
through the conventional zoning district. The City reserves the right to
deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re-apply under the
standard applicable zoning district.
PUD Concept reviews are to proceed as follows:
(a) PUD Concept Proposal
Prior to submitting formal development stage PUD, preliminary plat
(as applicable) and rezoning applications for the proposed
development, the applicant may, at its option, prepare an informal
concept plan and present it to the Planning Commission and City
Council at a concurrent work session, as scheduled by the
Community Development Department. The purpose of the Concept
Proposal is to:
1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in
collaboration between the applicant, general public, Planning
Commission, and City Council;
2
2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a
requirement for extensive engineering and other plans.
3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the
proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD
design and review.
The intent of Concept Proposal review is to consider the general acceptability of
the proposed land use, and identify potential issues that may guide the City's
later consideration of a full PUD application. The City Council and Planning
Commission meet in joint session to provide feedback to the developer, and may
include an opportunity for informal public comment as they deem appropriate.
Staff Preliminary Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary
considerations evident at this point in the process include the following elements:
i. Land Use. As stated above, the proposed project area is guided "Places to
Live" (Residential) and Places for Community. The applicants propose the
entire project area be guided to Places to Live, a residential category that
would support the proposed detached single family development.
ii. Cul-de-sac street. The proposal relies on a single-entrance private street of
approximately 1,300 feet in length. All 48 units would utilize the single street
access point on Fallon Avenue. The City's Subdivision Ordinance typically
limits cul-de-sac streets to a maximum of 600 feet in length. One of the
purposes of this standard is to limit the traffic volumes on residential streets.
In a typical single family neighborhood, a 600 foot cul-de-sac would
accommodate approximately 15 — 20 homes. The proposed project would
generate up to three times the traffic along the street. Private streets are
permitted under a PUD designation.
iii. Pedestrian circulation. The applicants have identified two trail connections
that extend to external properties. One is a longer route that extends from an
internal cul-de-sac, generally along the route of the driveway easement
across the "Busch" property. However, based on staff's understanding of the
easement, no trail is permitted on that route — only the driveway that was to
serve the Jameson house.
The second trail extends from the end of the easterly cul-de-sac to a trail on
the St. Benedict's residential property to the east. While this connection
would be valuable to residents of this project and the St. Benedicts property,
both trails serve private property and would not be accessible to the public—
or each other unless the property owners agree.
Instead of the trails proposed, staff would recommend a sidewalk along the
length of the private street. This sidewalk would serve the residents of the
development to gain access to a public street. The sidewalk would serve to
3
remove pedestrians from walking in the street—which as noted above, will be
carrying significant levels of traffic. Moreover, the street is designed to be a
relatively narrow paved surface. Pedestrians in the street would have no safe
walking area without the sidewalk. Staff has suggested that the construction
of the sidewalk, in specific the portions which provide access to a public
system, could be considered an element that qualifies for a portion of the
required park dedication.
iv. Lot sizes and site planning. The applicants propose 50 foot wide lots, with
detached buildings varying between 2 and 3 car garages. The plan details
that garage setbacks would be 25 feet (although some are as little as 21.4
feet. Staff would suggest that 25 feet be maintained, as parking in the
driveways for longer vehicles would interfere with snowplowing.
The site planning presumes 6 foot side setbacks, leaving buildable area of 38
feet of width on most parcels. A three car garage will typically consume 30
feet or more of that width, although the applicants have not supplied
architectural information on the proposed units.
Rear setbacks are varied, and there appears to be little concern from a
standard land use perspective, as the rear yards of the proposed units do not
impact surrounding property. However, some of the setbacks are very
shallow and would not accommodate the additions of decks or porches,
additions which the City has seen can become problematic for townhome
developments if not planned for initially.
Staff notes also that one of the units in the center of the plat is situated
without frontage or clear access to the street. This unit should be eliminated
from the proposal.
V. Park and Open Space. Based on the site plan and concept narrative
provided by the applicant, the amount of open space is not addressed. As
noted in the applicant's narrative materials, the applicant proposes that park
dedication fees be waived, in exchange for construction of the trails shown on
the plan. The applicant further notes that the connections could access the
St. Henry's church property. However, this too is private property, and would
not qualify as a park dedication credit.
As noted, the illustrated trails are not feasible without additional agreement by
other private property owners. Instead, staff has recommended a sidewalk
along the private street.
One area of uncertainty is a portion of the to-be-acquired St. Henry's church
property that is not being developed, and is shown with hashed lines through
it. The plan is not clear as to the intent of this area and would ask that the
applicant clarify this portion of the concept area.
4
Staff notes that St. Henry's Church will need to verify the limits of its land
conveyance as a part of the plat, and access to St. Henry's remaining
parcel(s) will need to be clarified as a component of the development
agreement. It is likely that a cross-access Conditional Use Permit will need to
be processed concurrent with the Plat to resolve questions about frontage
and access for the northerly St. Henry's parcel which is being subdivided in
part for this project.
vi. Parking and driveways. The plan shows two 5-space parking bays along the
street to provide overflow parking. As a practical matter, the applicant should
plan for one additional parking space per each 2.5 units, a total supply of
approximately 20 off-street spaces. With the narrow street pavement
dimension (26 feet), and the number of closely-space driveways from each of
the proposed homes (not illustrated on the plan), there would be no other
overflow parking than what is provided in the separate bays. Staff would
recommend at least two additional 5-space bays be added to the plan.
As noted, driveways are not illustrated on this plan. For the bulk of the
project, there will be little conflict, and reasonable spacing. However, around
the cul-de-sacs, driveways will be a significant issue as they converge —
especially from 3-car garages — on the paved cul-de-sac area. Staff would
recommend that additional spacing be provided between units on the cul-de-
sacs, with at least 10 feet between driveway curb cuts. This can be
accomplished with specific unit style and driveway orientation. Without this
spacing, snow piling creates problems with visibility.
vii. Fire access. The project should be reviewed by fire department officials for
firefighting access. One staff suggestion is to reinforce the "trail" shown off of
the easterly cul-de-sac to connect to the fire lane that circles the St. Benedicts
building. Fire department comment on the feasibility of this idea is
recommended. It should also be reviewed to ensure that the City would have
access rights between this project and the fire lane on St. Benedict's property.
viii. Existing park parcel. The applicant is asking that the City vacate the park
interest in the remnant park at the corner of Fallon Avenue and 7t" Street, as
it is proposed to be utilized for a portion of the western-most unit. This
process can be a lengthy and expensive one which cost should be borne by
the applicant. In addition, there are utilities within the parcel which will be
required to be retained. These easements would limit the usability of the
parcel. Other design options to work around the park parcel may be more
easily implemented.
ix. Building architecture. As noted, no building designs have been submitted
with this concept. The City may wish to identify architectural elements that
may be important for meeting the threshold of PUD design. Staff would
recommend that the baseline standard be drawn from the T-N, Traditional
Neighborhood building materials as a minimum.
5
X. Tree impacts and landscaping. There is a significant amount of tree cover on
portions of the proposed development site. The plan does not detail the
impacts on tree cover on the site. A tree survey will be required as part of the
platting and PUD process. It would appear to be beneficial to shift the built
area to the south if possible, toward the boundary with St. Henry's Church
property to minimize tree impacts. Tree loss and replacement would be a
factor in reviewing the eventual landscaping plans for the project. In addition,
given the high visibility of the site, attention to landscaping should be given
along the 7t" Street/Fallon Avenue roundabout area.
xi. The City Engineer has provided a concept review letter detailing additional
comments on this project.
Summary. As noted, the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment and
feedback to the developer at the Concept Review level. City officials should identify any
areas of concern that would require amendment to avoid the potential for eventual
denial, as well as any elements of the concept that the City would find essential for
eventual approval.
Specific comment should address the following potential issues-
1. Overall Land Use.
2. Density.
3. Cul-de-Sac Street Length.
4. Lot Configuration and Building Layout.
5. Park and Open Space Requirements.
6. Parking and Driveways.
7. Firefighting Access.
8. Existing Park Vacation.
9. Building Design and Materials.
10.Tree Impacts and Landscaping Requirements.
11.Engineering comments and recommendations.
The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as
the project proceeds to a more advanced stage of review.
As noted, the applicant has made five specific requests as a part of the City's
consideration of this project. A copy of that summary is included in this packet. These
items are subject to Council feedback and direction. The waiver of various land costs
and development costs is a matter of legal and policy consideration for City Council
review. Staff does not recommend waiving park dedication requirements, but it is
common to credit constructed improvements (such as trail) where the improvements
show benefit to the City's park and trail system plans and objectives.
As noted initially, this memorandum reviews the land use and site planning elements of
the request. The City Council should provide direction, either as a part of this joint
6
session or in a separate proceeding, regarding the public finance aspects of the
request, although no formal decision can be made as part of the concept review. The
City Council will likely be asked to participate formally in the plat and land use process
as a property owner, and should provide direction to the applicant on any items
requested as part of that consideration.
SUPPORTING DATA
Aerial Site Image
Applicant Narrative
Summary
Schedule
Requests
Concept Boundary
Concept Plan
City Engineer's Comment Letter
7
o
u
r�
U
„em
I I r
-4-+
�l
N r
i
Y
Q p
O 6
_ Ln i
Ln
r®
Ln III
I
r-I
C
D OO
Ln
f6 Ln
Ln
f'6
O w -
-
Q Ln
[Ck ff 011/1/l0/i
f /
u Ln
d
U q, / l
O
O O
Ln
O
_ O '
OLn
�L7
� f
Q) OLn
Ln
/il l f 1
CA
IBI+�gar , Pederson
Associate Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
February 25, 2020
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Ms. Schumann:
Mielke Development, LLC is interested in developing the property to construct a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) townhome development near Fallon Ave NE & E 71" Street,
Monticello, Minnesota. (Parcel # 155500123300, 155115001011, 155115001010 &
155011000092). The property is approximately 12+/- acres in size. The balance of the
property is unimproved and is covered with prairie grass, and trees.
Legal Descriptions:
PID 155-500-123300
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township
121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the
southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 01
degree 24 minutes 50 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of said
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 534.50 feet; thence South 88 degrees 35
minutes 10 seconds East, 318.00 feet; thence North 12 degrees 24 minutes 50 seconds
East, 292.79 feet to the south line of Old Territorial Road as described in Document No.
765393 and a point hereinafter known as Point "A"; thence South 67 degrees 59
minutes 57 seconds East, along said south line of Old Territorial Road as described in
Document No. 765393, a distance of 989.48 feet to the east line of said Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 01 degree 24 minutes 40 seconds East,
along said east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 70.50 feet to the
north line of Old Territorial Road as described in Document No. 765393 and the point of
beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing North 01 degree 24 minutes
40 seconds East and along said east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, 297.76 feet to the southerly line of the Burlington Northern Railroad, formerly
Great Northern Railway; thence northwesterly, along said southerly line of the
Burlington Northern Railroad, 1045.83 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North
Bogart,Pederson&Assoc Phone: 763/262-8822
13076 First Street Fax: 763-262-8844
Becker,MN 55308 Toll free: 888/210-8301
www.bogart-pederson.com
Page 12
13 degrees 57 minutes 39 seconds West from the aforementioned Point "A", said line
being the centerline of Old Territorial Road and its southerly extension; thence South 13
degrees 57 minutes 39 seconds East, along said centerline of Old Territorial Road to the
northerly line of Old Territorial Road as described in Document No. 765393; thence
South 67 degrees 59 minutes 57 seconds East, along said northerly line of Old Territorial
Road as described in Document No. 765393 to the point of beginning.
Also that part of vacated Old Territorial Road described as that part of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12,Township 121, Range 25, Wright
County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1
degree 24 minutes 50 seconds East along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter, a distance of 534.50 feet; thence South 88 degrees 35 minutes 10
seconds East, a distance of 318.00 feet; thence North 12 degrees 24 minutes 50 seconds
East, a distance of 292.79 feet to the south line of Old Territorial Road being the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence South 67 degrees 59 minutes 57 seconds
East along said south line, a distance of 989.48 feet to the east line of said Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 1 degree 24 minutes 40 seconds East
along said east line, a distance of 70.50 feet to the north line of said Old Territorial Road
being distant 66.00 feet north of and parallel with said south line of Old Territorial Road,
a distance of 1012.57 feet to the intersection of a line bearing North 13 degrees 57
minutes 39 seconds West from the point of beginning, said line being on center line of
Old Territorial Road and its southerly extension; thence South 13 degrees 57 minutes 39
seconds East along said center line and its southerly extension, a distance of 81.94 feet
to the point of beginning.
PID 155-115-001011 + Part of PID 155-115-001010
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Church of St. Henry, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Wright County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the following described line: Commencing
at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1; thence South 67 degrees 59 minutes 57
seconds East, assumed bearing, along the northerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of
350.00 feet; thence South 22 degrees 00 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 120.00
feet; thence southwesterly to the intersection of the North line of the South 10 acres of
the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12,Township 121, Range
25, Wright County, Minnesota, and the North line of the South 10 acres of Lot 9,
Auditor's Subdivision No. One, according to the recorded plat thereof, with the
Bogart,Pederson&Assoc Phone: 763/262-8822
13076 First Street Fax: 763-262-8844
Becker,MN 55308 Toll free: 888/210-8301
www.bogart-pederson.com
Page 13
northeasterly right of way line of 7t" Street, as dedicated on the recorded plat of Church
of St. Henry.
PID 155-011-000092
Those parts of Lot 1 of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter according to a
survey by E.B. McCord and Lot 9 of Auditor's Subdivision No. One according to the
recorded map thereof being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 12, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter; thence north along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, a distance of 534.50 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described;
thence east deflecting 90 degrees right, a distance of 318.00 feet; thence northeasterly
deflecting 79 degrees left, a distance of 155.44 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting 79
degrees 30 minutes left, a distance of 252.20 feet; thence west deflecting 21 degrees 30
minutes left, a distance of 113.00 feet to the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter; thence south along said west line, a distance of 245.00 feet to the
point of beginning.
Part of PID 155-050-000010
That part of the Park, as dedicated on the recorded plat of Construction 5 Addition,
Wright County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the northerly right of way line of 7t" Street
East.
Zoning:
Mielke Development, LLC is interested in developing the property to construct a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) townhome development. The properties (Parcel #
155500123300, 155115001011, 155115001010 & 155011000092) are currently zoned R-
1 Residential. The zoning will need to be changed during the PUD process to allow for a
villa townhome development.The proposed development will allow for approximately 48
townhomes to be developed.
Bogart,Pederson&Assoc Phone: 763/262-8822
13076 First Street Fax: 763-262-8844
Becker,MN 55308 Toll free: 888/210-8301
www.bogart-pederson.com
Page 4
Proposed lot Configuration:
The Building setbacks used for the sketch are as follows:
• Front 25' Typical with a Minimum of 21.4'
• Side 6' (10' between overhangs of buildings)
• Corner Side 20'
• Rear 30'
The overall standards of the development will be:
• Minimum Lot Width 50'
• Street Width 26'
Proposed Density:
Area (s.f.) Area Percentage
Total Property 520,157 100%
Homes 114,500 22%
Driveways 48,000 9
Road 60,000 12%
Path/Sidewalk 14,500 3%
Public Utilities:
Public water main and sanitary sewer will be necessary to serve a configuration with the
desired lot sizes. The public utilities are located on the west end of the site and on the
north side of the roundabout on E 7t" Street. BPA has confirmed with the City of
Monticello that the utilities will allow for gravity flow with the sanitary sewer (from
Engineering Drawings of the E 7t" Street reconstruction project).
Bogart,Pederson&Assoc Phone: 763/262-8822
13076 First Street Fax: 763-262-8844
Becker,MN 55308 Toll free: 888/210-8301
www.bogart-pederson.com
Summary
What the developer is providing
1. 48 unit villa development 1" phase/4 properties potential 57
units/all 5 properties
2. Higher end villa development
. Estimated $350,000 average unit sales price
4. Project estimated to produce just under $200,000 per yr tax revenue. 2
million in 10 years.
. Project Solves®
a. Jameson/city access issue/jameson property can be developed
r�. Vnur`n get s ine type of project is wanes
c. Malones can sell their property
d. City gets-
1. city/jameson access issue solved (developer builds 2 lane access)
2. mct iincior onn,nnn Nor;r tax revenue
3. provide a type of housing product currently lacking in Monticello
market
6. developer will also absorb all the additional costs ($500,000+)
associated with
a. the removal of two severly deteriorated historic properties
b. Extra grading costs due to difficult topography
c. Tree study
I
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 3
Fehruary
I
• Mid-February start topographic survey (2-3 wks)
i
• Submit city application
• End February start Civil Design and Update Concept plan (3-5 wks)
March
• March 2"d Concept PUD meeting with joint planning Commission and City Council
• March 3`d Start tree study(if required), Landscaping plan,Geotechnical Soil Investigations
• Mid-March acquire permits to start remove all of the delisted historic houses. Hopefully
can Arrange a controlled Burn with the Monticello Fire Dept.
April
• April 61n Application Date for Preliminary Plans and Plat
• Mid/End of April Address City comments to Plans and Plat
May
• May 5t" Planning Commission (Preliminary Phase)
• May 26th City Council (Preliminary Phase)
• May 27th Application Date for Final Plans and Plat
June
• June 8th or 22"d Final Approval of project at City Council
July
• Prepare bid documents
• Put the bids out
• Review and chose contractors
August
• Start construction of project
September
• Continue infrastructure,surveying, utilities,construction
September/October
• Start construction of Model Homes
October forward
• Market,sell and build homes Move in expected to start Spring 2021
• Expecting a 3 yr total build out
In order for me (the developer) to develop this project as proposed-
request the following 5 items from the city—NONE REQUIRE THE CITY TO
SPEND ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY
1. Vacate the city's small triangle shaped parcel at the SW— corner or tine
Malone property and get it on the tax roles.
7 N®1n gQ®t t%h® hic12+nrir ehmeen vni thin hANtnnn® 1n4rnnort7 ri®ligat®94 frnnm +h® y
historic register and issue a demolition permit. If cannot get it
delisted, waive the EAW fee and help expedite the process and issue a
demolition permit.
_r �_vr 6A w. lal.a .dn..®Innarl ran huild
3. Deed the narrow city strip oT land G 1 1e ,v 1 lute \ACVC.VN�.; ^-�••-�
the access across it to the Jameson property solving the Jameson/city
access issue. Additionally puts the strip of land on the tax roles.
4. Waive any park dedication fees because we have an agreement with
aV_ MUM]
&- 4...91.! w'+h�e��vc frnm the Villa development to the
'Enc. M ] 6U wunU Naa11VVC1 1J ...+... m.... r -
adjoining church's park/ gardens. So in lieu of park dedication fees, we
are spending money to construct pathways to connect to a park.
5. A collaborative effort between the city and developer to expedite all
n®r®ceary nnnrnvals_ at the staff. planning commission and council
-
leveis due to the very time sensitive issues with this project.
:ON 3113 ....... NW `0-1-13011NOW
3113 0MA
:AB 0NO3H0
s aNtll
:AN—a 'ONI `S31tlIOOSSV '8 wvawla -l3Davd
M 3 :ANOIS30 N0SH303d .Lav00a y NVId 1d30NO3 w
N01-3S30 31tl0 Na 31tl0
P'
%W
,,.�.
IB
AS
// ri
AM
AN
l/� Sao
/. /%/
r , 11
/ ,,. /%/
as
ego
"OV OWN
%i
ON 31I3 t��s-ao�ss-pry d��,3a,3�a.= NW '0113011NOW
:33I3 OMA
:/9 a3 NO3Ha
s oNtlr
:Ae N—a 'ONI `S31tlI30SStl T SlOI 3W0H 011`dd
MVO :ANOIS30 NOSH303d IU11008 V N`dld 1d30NO3 w
NO-NOS30 31VO ON :31V0
ai
0 Z
Y
Q O Z.N O � C
d 1f1 N c-I c-I �
c-I
V � o
In d ai N
z 0
Z
O LL O O Q
0 N N M 0
x D 0
o w w �/// �� %/� r �l r rrr!r✓i//�iii rr/i r rfii'/ � �'ai o
jim
Z w w w 0 % � // / rilr !I (�ir% //i///r // /�✓ / /Ji //
aax�mm oz
w
Y
z w— z z w 0
70�>�� �0z¢ yiiiiiii�
w O 0 z`n`n w z w o
O
0 x w a 0 0 w V a V
r0
/,�/o
J it/` � ` /p l ( ` ✓ ��iiii o / /Gi/
///�j �j{lI i/ t�f (I %� fI ///,J ( I(li ��/, `�� ✓//i viiiii ,„ /iiii
i ff Aw
a /illiW,
All
��//��f/✓/ r� �/ 11 rl %ir i �/� ,
//✓
rra�%i����� ���l%/HIV a/%��i�%%%���J ii,,,>� �� r, r� ' ,,,,� /�✓i�� ufv�u�
�/;,
�!
f�IIIJ���/�i°o�lirDr✓ia�r�iifli�/�%//O"/�///���� /�/r//' / jI ,; %//�,����/ fail fl��fc
/
///, //!Orr///i � °��/iro, ri/✓fI�17�"r�ray!/ �%/ /ii///// ri �i% �
r
//���%///
Wm �%/
Ji / l
I /i/// ✓i %/r//ii //' ,�/,
{Sli/
iow i i i%�j
j% r;:
�I��r�-;�i�G// // //�/i//�m1%//rl/spa%✓% �/ �i�r,-r�F,,, �%// �, �(fllu /�f
�ry �(!��/// /�/'/�/�/i/ /i/fir�i%✓/��/r/i��/%%rr; �r�/�i/,r)/� 1
9�N ,/r/,,.,
/r...........,,,,,,,
%%/O
ws b
February 2 , 2020
Matt Leonard
City Engineer/Public Works Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
e: Mielke Patio Home Development
Concept Stage PUD Plan Review
City Project No. 2020-00
WSB Project No. -015651-000
Dear Mr. Leonard:
0 We have reviewed the conceptual stage PUD site plans dated February 20, 2020. The applicant
Q. proposes to construct 48 single-family homes.
0
.
J
M The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello's general
engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding
these matters.
0
0
CO
1. Streets and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision
„O Orclonnances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for
a Street and Utility Construction.
2. Street access spacing, grades, and sight lines will be reviewed with future submittals.
3. Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site:
E a. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the
proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City's Design
Manual
n.. b. Proposed runoff rates shall be less than or equal to existing runoff rates.
ct
uJ c. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1" over the
new impervious area, Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging
to the existing pond.
d. The proposed site is tributary to the ditch adjacent to the Railroad tracks. The
0 City's water resource management plan identifies the need for new outlet pipes
LJ (3-30" pipes) under the railroad tracks. The implementation of this improvement
has yet to be determined.
e. Significant upstream drainage area is tributary to the ditch system along the RR
tracks. The proposed building first floor elevations should be set to provide
adequate freeboard accounting for the upstream tributary area.
f. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and
JJ
>, should be submitted with the stormwater report for review.
g. The site is outside of the DWSMA and is not subject to requirements of the City's
Wellhead Protection Plan.
J
X
K:\015651-000\Admin\Docs\2020-02-21 Submittal-Concept PUD Plans\_2020-02-24 LTR Mielke Concept PUD-WSB Plan Review.docx
Mielke Patio Home Development Concept Stage PUD—WSB Plan Review
February 25,2020
Page 2
4. Consistent with state requirements, an EAW or delisting process is required prior to the
demolition of the place of historic significance on the Jameson Property. The City will not
waive the fees associated with performing an EAW.
5. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided
with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to
construction commencing.
6. A utility plan shall be provided showing the existing and proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain and storm sewer serving the site. Watermain looping may be required
through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply.
7. The building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency
vehicle access/circulation.
8. A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant
submits complete civil plans and a stormwater management report.
The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted
plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or
modifications required during construction to meet the City's standards.
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Feel free
to contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering
review.
Sincerely,
WSB
James L. Stremel, P.E.
Senior Project Manager