Planning Commission Agenda 06-05-2007
.
.
-
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 5th, 2007
6:00 PM
Commissioners:
Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Barry Voight
Council Liaison:
Brian Stumpf
Staff:
Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson
Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman - NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of May 1st, 2007.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
5.
Consideration of a request for extension of a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for
Development Stage Planned Unit Development for the proposed Villas at Elm.
Applicant: UP Development
6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Preliminary Plat for the proposed Hidden Forest.
Applicant: Monticello 39, Inc.
7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development for a proposed commercial development.
Applicant: 251 Partnership/Mike Schneider
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for
expansion of Open and Outdoor Storage
Applicant: Sunny Fresh Foods
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Simple Subdivision, Rezoning from B-4
(Regional Business) to PS (Public/Semi-Public), Amendment to Planned Unit Development,
and Variance to signage height and area requirements.
Applicant: St. Benedict's Senior Care Facility/CentraCare, St. Henry's Catholic Church and
Home Depot, Inc.
10.
Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use
designation from industrial to commercial and a request for Rezoning from l-lA (Light
Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business). (South Side of East Chelsea Road)
Applicant: Mills Properties Inc.
.
.
.
11.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change
in land use designation from industrial to commercial and a request for Rezoning from I-IA
(Light Industrial) to B-3 (Limited Business). (North Side of East Chelsea Road)
Applicant: Mills Properties Inc.
12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for
a retail commercial development at Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition.
Applicant: Mielke Bros., LLC
13. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Open and
Outdoor Storage, Open and Outdoor Sales and Display and Automobile Repair - Light in a B-
4 (Regional Business) District.
Applicant: Moon Motorsports
14. Adjourn.
.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May IS', 2007
6:00 PM
Commissioners Present:
Chairman Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart,
William Spartz, Barry Voight
Commissioners Absent:
None
Council Liaison Present:
Brian Stumpf
Staff Present:
Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Ollie
Koropchak, Steve Grittman - NAC, Kimberly Holien-
NAC
1. Call to Order.
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, noting a full quorum of the
Commission and the presence of Council Liaison Stumpf.
2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April3rd, 2007.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
APRIL 3rd, 2007.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
NONE.
4. Citizen Comments.
NONE.
5. Consideration of a re uest for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for en
and Outdoor Sales. Open and Outdoor Storage and Minor Auto Repair.
Applicant: Moon Motors
Planner Grittman provided the staff report, highlighting that the applicant had
previously received a conditional use permit for open and outdoor storage, open
and outdoor sales and display and minor auto repair. City ordinance requires that
conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. Grittman stated that
as the applicants still plan on construction of a facility, they are asking for
I
.
extension of the conditional use permit for one year. Grittman reported that staff
recommend approval of the request.
Spartz inquired how many times the applicant can come back for an extension.
Grittman stated that the ordinance does not specify or limit the number of
extensions allowed.
Dragsten asked if the applicant was in attendance. The applicant was not in
attendance.
Spartz inquired about the time frame for extension. Grittman stated that a specific
request hadn't been made, but staff would recommend an extension of one year.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF
THE MAY STH, 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOON MOTORSPORTS
TO MAY STH, 200S.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for
Amendment to Development Stage PUD to allow an expansion of Open &
Outdoor Storage and Outdoor Sales & Displav. Applicant: Home Depot
Planner Grittman reported that the applicant has requested tabling of this item, as
they would like time to prepare additional supplemental information for their
request.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE ACTION ON THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF OPEN AND
OUTDOOR STORAGE AND OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
7. Public Hearing- Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for a change in land use designation from industrial to commercial and a request
for Rezoning from I-IA to B-4 (Highwav Business). Applicant: Mills Properties,
Inc.
.
Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant has requested
a change in land use requiring a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning.
The application review in this report is purely for the land use designation, the
comprehensive plan and zoning designation, only. Grittman stated that if the
requests are successful through the Council, the applicant would most likely be
2
.
required to come back through for review of the site plan via a conditional use
permit.
Grittman indicated that the current Comprehensive Plan designates the subject
property for industrial use. Broadening the tax base and targeting high quality
businesses are cited as economic development goals with the 1996
Comprehensive Plan. These goals apply no matter what the land use in this area.
Grittman noted that the City is in the process of updating the comprehensive plan.
Through that process there has been discussion on the land use designation in this
area with the task force, but there has been no consensus. From a staff
perspective, the 1996 goals will be used as a reference point and evidence for
consideration of the proposed change.
According to updated information, the City currently has approximately 135.5
total acres of industrial land available, Grittman reported. Specifically within the
Monticello Commerce Center, 67.5 acres of industrial zoned are available. At the
time of adoption, the current Comprehensive Plan indicated that there was 113
acres of B-4 zoned land available in the City.
.
Grittman noted that there is an Environment Assessment Worksheet underway on
this project. He stated that whenever a commercial project of sufficient size
comes forward, the City is required to complete an EA W as part of the review
process. Information from the preliminary EA W has been provided in this report.
Grittman stated that staff believes the EA W provides guidance that will help
analyze the request, particularly when looking at traffic.
Grittman reported that Chelsea Road has been designated as a major collector for
the south side of the community. Right now, it has been constructed as a rural
section and functions as a local street. The plan has been for Chelsea to be
reconstructed as a three lane roadway.
.
Grittman noted that there has been a significant amount of discussion on whether
the upgrade to Chelsea and the proposed project are connected,. He stated that is
not the case. The upgrade may have had something to do with Mills decision to
seek this location, but the reconstruction was not created by the Mills project.
Grittman also referred to the existing assessment agreement with the current
property owner of the subject site. He reported that a financing link was made
that if the City did rezone the property, the property owners would be required to
pay additional amount of assessment on the 1-94 and CSAH 18 interchange. He
indicated that there was no agreement to actually rezone the property, instead the
agreement only provided the option for the event that it was rezoned. Grittman
stated that there was no legal way for the City to make an obligation to rezone to
the property owner. He stated that this item should not be linked to the land use
decision. It was restated that although there has been a lot of discussion about
3
.
that financial consideration, there is no City obligation to rezone this property for
commercial purposes.
In regard to traffic data, Grittman referred to the EA W, which stated that there are
3650 vehicle trips per day currently on Chelsea Road. Under a light industrial
use, it is estimated that the site would generate just over 1700 additional trips per
day. If the property were to be rezoned for this commercial use, the increase
would be something over 11,000 trips per day. There is a difference in projected
trips between the commercial and industrial use of over 8,200 trips.
The draft EA W analyzes intersection and traffic lane function for determining
what kind of improvements would be needed. Grittman stated that the current
status of Chelsea is a grade A. The worst rating is an F, for no traffic flow. It is
estimated that if the commercial designation is approved, that level of service
would be a B. Grittman commented that this is generally considered to be an
acceptable level, with some delay, but traffic would flow at a reasonable level
without significant congestion.
Grittman indicated that the staff report summarizes pros and cons on either side of
the land use re-designation issue.
.
The site is located in full view of Interstate 94, just west of the new interchange,
Grittman stated. The interchange was not in place at the time of development of
the industrial park, nor the comp plan. Grittman said that when there is a limited
amount of freeway exposure, the freeway exposure is a limited commodity, and it
is reasonable to consider whether the City would consider rezoning. If it were not
for the interchange, Grittman stated that this area although highly visible, is not
highly accessible. This is an important factor when considering land use for the
area.
Regarding the land uses, Grittman stated that while the area is zoned for
industrial, the surrounding land uses in actuality represent a mix of uses.
Grittman pointed out that the important distinction is the actual land use, not the
zoning. In fact, the area is not entirely industrial in nature. There is vacant land
zoned for commercial to the east, vacant land to the north of this site on Chelsea,
a mix of industrial and office uses to the west and a school to the south. Grittman
reported that often discussed in rezonings such as this, is whether or not this is
spot zoning. That isn't necessarily the case here. Grittman stated that "spot
zoning" refers to an incompatible use.
Grittman commented that had none ofthe land in the area been developed now, it
would be a fair statement to say that the raw land would have been considered for
commercial and guided that way. However, he stated that the fact is that there is
existing industrial in place.
.
4
.
Grittman presented points that would argue in favor of maintaining existing
zoning. As mentioned earlier, the EA W indicates there would be a significant
increase in traffic. With a mix of retail commercial and industrial traffic,
Grittman stated that there will be traffic conflicts, even though the level of service
only changes from an A to 8. This is due to acceleration factors for trucks and
access to Chelsea Road. The traffic will affect industrial operations. Also, truck
traffic will affect retail traffic.
The second item, Grittman stated, relates to the City's greater land use pattern.
He referred to the zoning map, stating that the green areas shown on the zoning
map are commercial. There is a significant supply of B-3 and B-4 properties,
possibly where a Mills Fleet Farm facility would be able to locate. Grittman
indicated that is significant as the City has taken steps to identify appropriate
location for commercial land uses. These include considering the Highway 25
corridor and Chelsea Road area to the west.
.
Grittman reported that incompatible land uses can also affect land value. In
general, a large retail development has an overall up pressure on land values. As
a regional consideration, it will also increase land values. However, it has a
different affect on other properties. For new industrial uses of high value, it may
be fair to say that the facility will not increase property values, as the
redevelopment to commercial opportunity is not available. As such, the higher
property values may not be the case for some of the properties in this area.
In summary, Grittman stated that he thinks there are factors that play into both
considerations. The change in designation will be a change in policy. Although
there is no other application for commercial in this area, Mills has indicated
interest in locating a gas station on the north side of Chelsea Road. Grittman said
that new commercial users create pressure for other commercial users. The area
along the interstate and Chelsea Road is ripe for that kind of pressure. Grittman
commented that while that isn't part of this consideration, it is a reality. He
commented that it may be likely that north side rezoning requests will follow.
Thus, Grittman recommended that the Commission should be looking at long
term land use in the area as part of this decision.
Grittman indicated that the two most important considerations are as follows. If a
change is appropriate, there is a mix of uses to support the introduction of
commercial, despite uniform zoning. On the other hand, there is a significant
industrial investment existing in the area. Staff has prepared findings for both
considerations. Grittman noted that all of these points have been summarized in
the staff report.
.
Dragsten confirmed that the Commission is just dealing with the 33 acres on the
south side of Chelsea. Grittman answered that was correct. Dragsten referenced
the financing and asked for further clarification. Grittman responded that the City
has an agreement with the property owner, that if this land is rezoned, the
5
.
property owner will pay the City more money as a part of the construction of the
interchange. Grittman stated that there is no obligation for, and in fact the City
could not enter an agreement guaranteeing, rezoning. Dragsten stated that would
make sense, that ifthe land was worth more, it could be assessed for more.
Gabler asked ifthe developer is promoting the land as commercial, are they just
assuming that the City will rezone. Grittman stated that he wouldn't presume to
speak for the developer, but they have the option to bring the request forward.
Gabler asked why Mills is looking at this property. Grittman stated that he would
presume it was freeway exposure.
Spartz asked how much vacant commercial land is available. Grittman responded
that the comprehensive plan indicates approximately 130 acres. Spartz asked how
many existing unoccupied building there are for commercial purposes, citing the
Maus Foods building. Grittman responded that he does not know. Dragsten
stated that he didn't believe that there was much available.
.
Hilgart clarified that the property to the east is zoned B-2. Grittman confirmed.
Hilgart asked what that entailed. Grittman stated that it is a general commercial
zoning designation, although B-4 is slightly broader. Grittman explained that B-4
is labeled regional business, B-2 is more neighborhood business-oriented.
However, the uses do cross over. Hilgart inquired if there would be a significant
difference in traffic in one over the other. Grittman stated that the traffic
information is based on the retail use, not the zoning designation. Hilgart stated
that he is trying to figure out why the change from I-IA to B-2 in that area.
O'Neill responded that area was zoned before the four-way interchange. It was
considered to be a node of commercial, but it would serve the local neighborhood.
Voight inquired if within the EA W, in designating the impact from A to B, it is
presuming the upgrade to Chelsea Road. Grittman stated that it does assume the
upgrade.
Hilgart asked if when the comp plan was updated in 1996, did the City have any
idea that there would be an interchange. Grittman stated that it was certainly
discussed, but it was not known when the interchange would be put into place.
Hilgart questioned that if the City knew it was possible, why would it be zoned
industrial. Grittman stated that it was zoned industrial prior to 1996, and it was
carried forward in the 1996 update.
.
Dragsten stated that in 1996, it was talked about that there would be some
interchange, but it didn't really say where. O'Neill stated that at that time, the
City had funded only the two legs, thinking that would be sufficient. O'Neill
stated that the state wouldn't allow Monticello to add to the design until the City
itself had the money to do it. The planning was predicated on limited access.
6
.
Dragsten noted the two page item submitted from the IDC. The IDC was
requesting that the south side of Chelsea between Fallon and CSAH 18 remain as
industrial. There was also a rezoning protest petition from area property owners,
stating the same. Dragsten stated that those were entered into the record.
Dragsten referenced the City's 135 acre industrial park and inquired how much
would be buildable. Grittman stated that the number came from the Economic
Development Director. Dragsten referenced that the primary factors for the
Commission were going to be the mixture of uses, and affecting the market values
of industrial uses in close proximity.
Grittman noted that if the Commission does feel that a commercial use is
appropriate, staff would recommend a PUD zoning designation, which allows the
City broader zoning control. Dragsten asked if there is the ability to zone as PUD
within the ordinance. Grittman stated that it would need to be tabled and brought
back to allow for that amendment.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
.
Brad Barger, property owner at 301 Chelsea Road, spoke to the Commission.
Barger thanked the Commission for taking comments on the item. Barger stated
that quite a few owners in the industrial park have looked at this proposal in terms
ofthe property vales. He indicated that most of the industries looked at this as an
industrial park, with the associated uses, including trucks coming in and out every
day. With the addition of the interchange, Barger stated that they have noted
more vandalism with the increase in traffic. He stated that the proposed changes
to Chelsea Road, including walkways, are something that industrial property
owners do not want.
Barger asked about the traffic level of service. Grittman confirmed it as an A
level currently. Barger stated that the older part of the road is to west, with the
newer section to the east. Grittman stated that while that is true, neither could be
described as new. Barger stated that it seems the road reconstruction was put
together for rezoning; if the whole road is that bad, wouldn't the whole thing need
to be completed. With all the traffic, it would seem that the City should do the
whole road. Barger commented that it appears that Mills is driving the Chelsea
reconstruction. Barger also stated that with trips and traffic and trucks, industries
do feel it would be safety issue. Barger noted again the cost of the assessments,
and the City's stated goal of building good jobs within the community. Barger
indicated that he doesn't feel it is a compatible use.
.
Voight asked Grittman what section of Chelsea Road would be improved.
O'Neill replied that it is the section from Fenning to Fallon. O'Neill reported that
the City has a number of roads that need to be reconstructed, but only bites off
what it can chew in terms of cost.
7
.
Doug Harmon, owner of Twin City Die Cast, addressed the Commission.
Harmon stated their third and newest plant is located off of Chelsea Road. In
looking at denying the request, the report talks about higher quality light industry.
Harmon noted that industry also looks at exposure to the interstate. When Twin
City Die Cast started to look at property, there were a number of properties of
interest. He stated that they enjoyed working with people in Monticello, and the
site was a great location. Harmon reported that a number ofthe nicest industrial
parks have been located off an interstate.
Harmon noted again that the zoning calls for higher quality light industry.
Harmon stated that he had their payroll people pull their company wages. The
average wage was $18.62 per hour, without benefits. The vision that Monticello
has as far as creating a higher quality in the area is working. The industries that
have located in the area have supported that goal.
Harmon stated that there are other commercial properties available and that the
increase in traffic volumes will be detrimental to the businesses.
.
Harmon referenced a die cast peer facility located in Madison, Wisconsin. He
stated that they were the first business in the area, and over time, the City opened
the area up for retail and commercial. Since that time, that business has been in
three different lawsuits.
Harmon stated that he would agree with the IDC that the industrial use is the
highest and best use ofthe property. He said that when locating the Monticello
plant, they did so to be able to expand two more times. He reported that the next
expansion would have been in the Monticello area. If this proposal is approved
Harmon stated that they will have to give serious consideration on whether to
expand on this piece of property.
Hilgart asked how many employees are at Twin City Die Cast. Harmon
responded that there are approximately 50 permanent full-time. Hilgart inquired
how many lived in Monticello. Patty Haiby, HR Administrator, responded that
about 2/3 live in Monticello.
Dragsten asked if traffic is Harmon's biggest concern. Harmon responded that
traffic would definitely be a concern. There will be congestion and brings in
concerns with security. However, another concern is that their expansion could
be a problem, as different types ofland owners may object. Dragsten asked if
Twin City Die Cast generates noise. Harmon responded that noise is limited.
Dragsten thanked him for this comments and complimented Harmon on his
business.
.
Mary Barger, Suburban Manufacturing at 301 Chelsea Road, addressed the
Commission. Barger stated that she has been a member of the IDC for close to 8
years and has helped bring and recruit businesses to Monticello. Barger said that
8
.
she truly believes that a regional center for technology and health care is
becoming more viable for Monticello. However, she stated that she believes the
spot zoning will not enhance the community. Barger referenced a letter from
surrounding property owners, indicating that they believe the rezoning will
diminish building values, increase the potential for crime, and will negatively
impact traffic, and offers no supporting benefit to the existing businesses.
Barger commented that the subject property is prime for a world-class facility.
All of the reasons a commercial business would want to locate there, are the same
for industry. Barger urged the Commission not to rezone, as she stated that she
does not believe it would not be in the best interest of the community.
Don Tomann, addressed the Commission as president of and partial owner of
UMC. Tomann reported that UMC is a family owned business, located at 500
Chelsea Road. He said that he echoes what Doug Harmon and Brad and Mary
Barger commented on. Tomann also thanked Steve Grittman for a balanced
presentation of the issues. Tomann stated that he wanted to make a few points of
clarification.
.
Tomann referenced O'Neill's comments on Chelsea Road and the assessment
agreement. Tomann stated that two sections of the agreement specifically talk
about Chelsea Road and the improvements, and tie the interchange improvements
into the discussion about the rezoning. Tomann indicated that he recognizes that
at any time the land owner can bring forward a petition for rezoning, but that he
believes the road has been brought forward because it is in the agreement.
Tomann read from the agreement a section referencing timelines for completion
of Chelsea Road. Tomann stated that the agreement in itself is the crux of a lot of
discussion as it is a pivotal point. Tomann reported that he has been speaking
with Commissioners and the Mayor, but nobody wants to talk about all of the
pieces together. The point he said he wanted to make is that this agreement was
put together between the City and a private landowner, and there was no
involvement by other landowners. He indicated that there was no discussion, and
that they were never notified that discussions were occurring. The first time land
owners heard about this was in January or December of this past year. At that
time, Tomann stated that he was invited to City Hall in reference to the pending
assessment for the Chelsea Road project.
Tomann stated that when they bought this property, they asked specifically in
2002 about assessments. Toman said that he don't know how much this road plan
was part of the City's plan then. If this was planned pre-2002, UMC was not told
about this. There was mention ofthe interchange, but there was no solid plan put
in place. Tomann stated that a pavement layover is very different from a three
lane road that is really a boulevard. Tomann read a letter prepared on behalf of
UMC.
.
9
.
Tomann referenced his discussions with the Mayor on the topic and with the
developer about redevelopment and expansion. He indicated that the City doesn't
know if it got a good deal or a bad deal qn the assessment issue, because there
was nobody else involved. The City doesn't know what the other entities could
have offered. Tomann stated that there is a whole lot of money to be generated
for an interchange than for a road that doesn't benefit him. He stated that it is
very disappointing, as he didn't think he would be standing in front of a
Commission and Council fighting for his business. Tomann explained that he had
an experience in Corcoran where the City couldn't supply what was needed to
expand. Monticello offered a beautiful park for growth and expansion.
Tomann told the Commission that he has 135 employees, with an average wage of
about $62,000 without benefits and growing. UMC brought 90 jobs to the City
and added 45 new jobs. Tomann referenced his expansion plans in light of
approval, stating that his only choice would be to move the entire facility.
.
Tomann commented that he thinks it is the job of Commission and Council to
paint a complete picture. He said that he doesn't think anyone is against Mills,
but the question is why this spot. It has been pointed out, that if there was no
industrial, it would be an easy decision, but it is there. Tomann asked the
Commission to respect landowners' ability to develop the property and respect
land rights equally. Tomann noted that it is cheaper to satisfy the customer you
have, rather than risk for those coming down the road.
Tomann stated that as a business owner, this item causes questions. Yes, there is
other industrial land available, but the City isn't going to fill it up if things are
subject to change. In closing, Tomann asked that the property owner's rights and
promises by the City be honored and upheld, that the City embrace jobs and
businesses and learn how to get a win-win for everyone.
Dragsten asked about the agreement. Grittman stated that he believes that it is not
the Planning Commission's job to decipher what is going to be done or isn't done
in terms of a financial arrangement. The Commission's job is to talk about land
use. Grittman noted that staff hasn't seen the letter that Tomann had written.
Dragsten asked why they would not be able to expand. Tomann drew an analogy
stating that perhaps a husband and wife have one child and move into a
community. Then, the City changes the zoning around them to something other
than residential. They're having triplets. They need to expand. Are they going to
put up with what is going on around them? They're going to make a decision
about how to make their investment payoff. Tomann stated that is why he made
the point about respecting property rights. He can't expand his business, as it
wouldn't make sense to put up a 40,000 square foot building that would be worth
less.
.
10
.
Dragsten asked ifit comes down to traffic. Tomann stated that it comes down to
investment. He stated that ifhe wasn't &oing to grow the business, it would be
fine, but he is going to expend. Tomann stated that while the traffic is a real
problem, the issue is that as an industrial property, it will be worth less. Dragsten
asked how Tomann would know that an industry wouldn't come in that would
create the same amount of traffic. Tomann stated that from a business point of
view, when you move into an industrial community, you know what you move
into. It isn't out of the ordinary to expect more trucks. He said that commercial
brings in different types of traffic that may cause conflict.
Dragsten stated that if you know what the end user is, you know what the traffic
patterns will be and it may be a benefit to your company. For example, the traffic
may occur at off-setting times and may not be as bad as an industrial user coming
and going at the same time. Tomann stated that he doesn't want to make the
argument about traffic. Tomann stated that while traffic is the easiest to picture,
what is less obvious is the impact on property owners. Tomann explained that he
has 135 employees that depend on thesejobs.
.
Dragsten noted that every property owner has the right to make an application.
Tomann agreed, but added that in dealing with the cities that he has, the only
thing a city has going for it, is the comprehensive planning and zoning. Tomann
asked if this proposal was going in the middle of a residential area, would it even
be a question.
Mayor Clint Herbst, 980 I Gillard Avenue, addressed the Commission. Mayor
Herbst stated that while he didn't intend to speak, he felt he needed to address the
characterization of the agreement as seeming to be backroom deal. Mayor Herbst
stated that the previous Council and Mayor had worked through the process of
trying to work through funding of interchange, trying to leave present industry
without a burden to pay for the interchange. Instead, the City tried to work with
property owners with vacant land. Herbst explained that when he came to the
Council, they took the agreement, with minor changes, and brought it forward.
He noted that everything happened in the Council chambers and that it isn't a
simple letter, but rather a whole agreement.
Stumpf added the comment that at one of the recent Council meetings, it was
stated that Mills was not a welcome business. However, it was stated that if it
was a hotel, or conference center, it would be. Stumpf stated that he took offense
to that comment.
Dragsten noted that as Planning Commissioners, there are not here to debate the
assessment agreement issue.
.
Ollie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, addressed the Commission.
Koropchak welcomed business owners and Mills Fleet Farm. Koropchak stated
that part of her job is to increase tax base, and manage business retention,
11
.
redevelopment and jobs. Koropchak explained that economic development
doesn't just doesn't include industrial dt1velopment. It is supportive of schools,
housing, commercial, and hospital distri~t expansion. She stated that economic
development recognizes the entire quality oflife issue. Koropchak stated that her
role as Economic Development Director isn't always easy and that she doesn't
always agree with staffs recommendation.
Koropchak indicated that the she invests time and energy in trying to recruit high
quality businesses. She stated that she would address those items via a
presentation.
Koropchak stated that she supports business retention, and as such, while she
encourages Fleet Farm to come to Monticello, she would encourage them to look
at a different site.
Koropchak stated that during a Comprehensive Plan Task Force meeting in
March, the issue ofland use in this area of Chelsea was discussed. She reported
that it was the consensus that the group favored the south as industrial, with the
north going commercial, but it was mixed. Koropchak stated that no formal
recommendation was made.
.
Koropchak stated that the 135 acres noted was a total of all three industrial
districts as compared to the 113 acres of just B-4 zoning. In response to the
question on developable acreage for the Otter Creek site, there are 53 acres left as
developable. The difference in characteristics in zoning districts was noted.
Koropchak stated that Monticello should be proud of the companies we bring to
Monticello, because both the City and private developer have covenants.
Koropchak stated that when the City uses local incentives, the purpose is to create
jobs and tax base, but also to get a quality product.
Koropchak commented that when talking about alternative sites, the property
adjacent to interchange is an option. It is already zoned B-2, and is more of a
compatible use. It is already a business zone, has the same property owner and
has freeway exposure. As for the subject site, with future development along
Chelsea Road, the south side will no longer have freeway exposure because the
north will be built up. Koropchak referred to the traffic analysis, stating that as far
as what the retail box generates, it should be recognized that as north side
develops, more traffic than this will be generated, so reconstruction would be
needed.
.
The proposal before the Commission represents a lot of hard surface, Koropchak
reported. She said that at one time Dundas Road was intended to go through this
property and intersect Chelsea Road. The discussion for industrial on this
property was to provide green space. Koropchak stated that in comparison to an
industrial use, if you took that 33 acres for commercial, it would need to have 10
acres of green space. Lastly, she stated that as Economic Development Director,
12
.
she was supportive of rezoning other industrial properties to commercial,
including the Ryan site on the north sid'1 of the interchange.
Koropchak stated that the City of Monticello does offer TIF to all properties,
subject to meeting state requirements. The city-owned land is marketed at $3.00
per square foot, plus trunk fees, for properties that do not meet criteria, which is
equivalent to other industrial land without TIF.
Koropchak cited an article in BoomTown USA, which discusses where business
owners live. She summarized by saying that business owners get involved in the
community and noted that Monticello has people in the industrial park that are
involved at all levels in the community. They invest in their buildings, but also in
their communities.
.
Koropchak distributed supporting data to the Commission. Koropchak stated that
she had asked the industrial property owners to provide wages, but also called the
County assessor to get market values of buildings. The spreadsheet presented
compared industrial to commercial values. Koropchak noted also that industrial is
likely to expand, while commercial properties do not. Koropchak reported that in
the long run, comparable industrial and commercial properties are approximately
even in land value. Koropchak said that the big difference is in wages, referring
to number and level of average annual wage positions, without benefits.
Koropchak indicated that reason supports her opinion on why it is important to
support the businesses that make large investments within the community. The
goal is to retain and create jobs so that employees can buy high-end homes.
In summary, Koropchak stated that supports that the 33 acres to remain industrial,
and encourages Fleet Farm to seek out another site. She encouraged the
Commission to support existing zoning and recruit new jobs.
Voight asked what the forecast is for industrial growth on the 33 acres, or even in
the general area. Koropchak stated that she would hope that in working with the
property owners, we could support them by using TIF if needed. Koropchak
stated that she does not know of an industrial project looking there currently. She
said that she does recognize that it takes much longer to develop industrial
property. Koropchak referenced the HRA and the recruitment and agreements
involved in securing industrial users. Koropchak stated that business owners
make a lot of commitments, and the City needs to do the same.
Bruce Buxton spoke to the Commission as a representative of Mills Properties
and Mills Fleet Farm. Buxton stated that the site was selected totally independent
of anything else going on within the City. He indicated that they have been
looking at this area for 5-7 years. He said that they are aware of alternative sites,
but for various reasons, they were not acceptable to Mills Fleet Farm.
.
13
.
Prior to the interchange coming in, Buxton stated that they would have never
considered this site. Because of the interchange, he stated that it made this a
viable site for the facility. It is a large enough site to accommodate the use, it is in
a mixed variety of other uses, and there is a synergy of commercial in the area. It
is also not too far from Highway 25, nor from the residential properties. It has
good freeway access, and freeway exposure. Buxton stated that it has all the
things that Mills' views as positive for business. He stated that they did not come
to Monticello to start a disagreement within the community. Buxton indicated
that they do think that the interchange changed the complexity of the area and that
is why they have made the request.
Buxton stated that Mills owns their own facilities and builds quality buildings.
Buxton stated that he had just met the land owner, as they have dealt with Mr.
Pfeffer as the land owner's representative. He reiterated that they found this site
as a result of the interchange. Buxton stated that he is happy to answer any
questions by the Commission
Dragsten asked how many Fleet Farms are built each year. Buxton responded
only I on average per year. He said that the company is owned by two brothers
who build what they can afford. He noted that the oldest to newest stores are a
night and day difference.
.
Dragsten posed the question that if Mills owned ten other sites, it could be ten
years before they built here. Buxton responded that some locations are property
acquisitions for new replacing old, or perhaps just aren't ready. Monticello ten
years ago wasn't ready. Buxton stated that it doesn't take traffic to support a store
like this. On the other hand, many of your residents currently go to other
locations, and they drive to do so. Buxton said that it is getting to a point where
Monticello has such a synergy where residents don't have to go elsewhere to
shop.
Dragsten stated that obviously Monticello would like to have the company here,
the zoning has nothing to do with that. Buxton stated that he understood.
O'Neill asked Buxton ifhe could describe any similar situations. Buxton stated
that they just acquired property in Ankeny, Iowa, a suburb if Des Moines. The
property acquired is all industrial. To the west are large distributors and
warehouse structures, but one-quarter mile north and south, it is all retail. Buxton
reported that they had made an application for rezoning, which so far has been
approved. The insulation distributor to the west has been looking for a different
site.
.
Hilgart asked ifthe zoning isn't changed, will Mills look elsewhere. Buxton
replied yes, but couldn't say that it would be in Monticello. He indicated that so
far, other Monticello locations have been unacceptable. The large parcel east of
14
.
25 that was cited has a large powerline corridor running through it. There is no
way to fit the building and not interfere 'fIith the transmission line.
Shawn Weinand, owner of the subject prbperty, addressed the Commission.
Weinand stated that he wanted to clarify'some items. Weinand pointed out that
the property right across from Twin City Die Casting is already commercial, and
has been for 20 years. He noted that when the pieces of property in the
Commerce Center were sold for industrial development, property owners were
made aware that Chelsea Road would be upgraded, as there was no storm sewer,
no curb and no fire hydrants.
Weinand explained that he has entered into contracts with the City for dozens of
years. He stated that he has made a hug, investment in the community and that
every development he has done has a development agreement that is negotiated
with staff and the Council. This situation was no different. Weinand stated that a
committee was put together to bring an interchange to Monticello. There were
many meetings at which it was noted that it was important not to charge the
industrial users and school. Weinand remarked that there was only a short period
of time to develop the interchange financing. At that time, he did not have a
buyer identified, as Ryan Companies did, and that it was not his idea to bring in
the interchange.
.
Weinand stated that if the issue is commitment, he has been committed to this
property for 20 years. Weinand noted that the same people here at the IDC
developed a City industrial park to compete. The subject site is difficult to
develop, as the road through the site would cost more than what it would return in
development. He said that the property would be best suited for a warehouse,
which would not qualify for TIF, generate a lot of hard surface, a fair tax base,
and not a lot of jobs. Weinand explained that he committed over $5 million to the
interchange and Chelsea Road improvements. He cited the contribution as a
gamble, just as when he contributed for the construction of School Boulevard and
built businesses on West Chelsea Road.
Weinand stated that he is also committed to the community. When the City asks
for an easement, he noted that he doesn't sell it, it is given. In regard to the
agreement being discussed, Weinand stated that when he negotiated, it was based
on good faith and the idea that he could bring world class retailers to town. He
indicated that growth is a matter of serious concern when Xcel may take away tax
base. He stated that Monticello needs some immediate tax base. Weinand stated
that the numbers on Koropchak's sheet seem a bit confusing. Weinand cited other
examples of commercial tax base contributions, including Wal-Mart, which has a
tax base of about $350,000. The Mills store as proposed will generate over $1.5
million dollars alone in fees.
.
Weinand stated that when the agreement was negotiated, he didn't know what the
property would be in terms of commercial or industrial. They have worked with a
15
.
number of property representatives. He noted that they had also worked with
Mills on the power line issue on the site mentioned. Weinand explained that he
owus 80 acres of the commercial propet mentioned, but this is the only site that
works for this user.
i
Weinand stated that in regard to approval of this use, when the housing market
comes back, Monticello will have made a huge statement. Weinand stated that he
doesn't believe there is a devaluation in adjacent industrial properties; there are
many examples. Weinand stated that in fact, the site UMC sold offin Corcoran is
industrial and commercial mixed.
Weinand noted that 15 years ago, he c1e to Monticello and stated that he could
bring the outlet mall- the one that got b ild in Albertville. However, he
recognized that he was young and didn't have a reputation. Now, residents ask
why didn't we get the mall. Weinand stted that he is glad Monticello didn't
because there are greater opportunities. '
.
Weinand commented that he believed it would be irresponsible not to rezone for
this user. He noted that everyone talks about jobs, but this town is built by blue
collar people that are still driving somewhere else to go to those $30,000 -
$50,000 jobs. He also stated that community kids need to work somewhere. This
user is paying good wages.
Weinand explained that he built the Rogers industrial park and those types of jobs
are not coming here right now. He reported that in the last 20 years, he has sold 8
pieces of property for industrial use; it takes a long time. Monticello needs to
grow now.
Dragsten stated that he agrees with Weinand on many of the points he makes, but
referred to economics as something that the Council has to deal with. Dragtsen
stated that the Commission appreciates the work that he and the City staff do to
bring business to Monticello.
Bill Tapper addressed the Commission as owuer of properties at 212 Chelsea and
1324 Edmonson, both in the 1-2 portion of the industrial park. Tapper stated that
he has been a member of the IDC for 14 years and has been active in bringing
industry to Monticello and participated in bringing UMC to the community.
.
Tapper stated that he has contended for some time that Monticello has the
potential to be the next Maple Grove from a commercial point of view, because of
its strategic location on transportation corridors and its position between 8t. Cloud
and Minneapolis. He said that he had also participated when the 1996
comprehensive plan was developed. Tapper stated that at that time, there were
discussions of an interchange, but that he didn't think anyone considered it a
serious opportunity. As such, Tapper commented that there wasn't any
consideration as to whether to change the zoning at that time. It was zoned
16
.
industrial, so the idea was to leave it be1ause there wasn't good access and there
wasn't any other industrial property. T ere was very little pressure to zone it
anything else. ,
Tapper stated that as one industrial property owner a short distance away, he
would like to tell the Commission that he is in favor of the rezoning. He indicated
that when looking at this property being rezoned, one has to take into account
what is best for the City. Tapper noted that Monticello has very little property
available with very good accessible freeway exposure. In keeping with his
thinking about Monticello's tremendous potential to be a commercial hub, Tapper
stated that the City must consider rezoning to commercial. He reiterated that he
believes it to be in the best interest of the city and is the best use of the land.
Tapper stated that it is also the right thing to do because of the number of jobs it
will bring into town and the tax base and the assessment base. Perhaps more
important, Tapper said that this kind of commercial development brings a
vibrance and excitemeot to the town. It makes others want to come here. He
noted that industrial development doesn't generate that kind of excitement. An
industrial user cites this as a look at what that community has to offer owners and
employees; Tapper stated that he believes it will enhance the community.
.
The next thing Tapper stated that he wanted to point out is that the bank that owns
his properties perceives that Mill's location in Monticello will enhance the values
of his properties. For his purposes, he said that it increases borrowing potential
and provides him with more opportunity to use collateral for other expansions.
Tapper commented that one ofthe items that wasn't mentioned was the proposed
Fallon A venue Bridge. He said that traffic on this overpass would have a
substantial impact on mitigating traffic resulting from this development. For
example, Tapper noted that when looking at Chelsea Road versus 7th Street,
which are similar, he doesn't find any traffic problems with the new retail
development. There isn't a lot of traffic, and Tapper indicated that he can't
comprehend a lot of traffic problems. He commented that the amount of truck
traffic in the industrial park is not tremendous.
Tapper pointed out that Twin City Die Cast is directly across from a B-2 area. So,
he stated that he can't comprehend how this would impact them any differently.
Tapper also explained that the property across from the City's own industrial park
is zoned commercial. Tapper cited other circumstances in other communities
where there is a substantial amount of commercial and industrial located in the
same general vicinity.
.
In closing, Tapper stated that as an industrial property owner less than y, block
from the proposed property, he would like to encourage the Commission to
consider the rezoning.
17
.
Dragsten asked how long Tapper's faci~' ies had been in Monticello. Tapper
replied that he had moved his business i 1990, and expanded in 1996. Two years
ago, he explained that he bought the H indow Building and expanded it a year
later. Dragsten asked Tapper about traffic. Tapper stated that it is what you'd
expect in an industrial area. Tapper noted that in comparison to other City streets,
such as Edmonson, Chelsea is a relatively good road. He stated that rebuilding
Chelsea benefits me very little.
Sutmpf asked Tapper ifhe was given the opportunity to look at the petition.
Tapper stated that he had not. He did note that he was the only dissenting
member regarding the lDC recommendation.
Matt Froelich, property owner of 9766 Fallon Avenue, addressed the
Commission. Froelich stated that he is an adjoining property owner and is
supportive of the rezoning. He stated that he did not get an opportunity to see the
petition. Froelich supported the rezoning for the same reasons that had been
stated.
Stumpf expressed that he favors finishing Chelsea to the west, but the City can
only complete what it has money for.
.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Voight stated that he would like to express appreciation for all of the information
from the business owners from both positions. He noted that he found
Koropchak's spreadsheet to be helpful. Voight stated that he empathizes with
business owners, but at this time, it may be that the City can't waste an
opportunity for B-4 zoning with highway exposure. Voight commented on the
excitement such a development would create. Voight suggested that the
community seems to want it and perhaps needs it. Voight indicated that it is a
difficult decision and that he has many conflicting thoughts on it.
Hilgart stated that there are pros and cons, and the decision has gone back and
forth in his mind. Had there not been any industrial users, Hilgart stated that he
would lean toward rezoning. He agreed that it is a difficult decision. Hilgart
questioned that ifthere was no Fleet Farm, would the Commission even be talking
about this. Dragsten noted that the Commission has to take the economics out of
the decision and consider what is the best zoning for the City moving forward.
.
Spartz commented that someone had told him growth can't happen without big
boxes, so that may make it hard to say no. However, in going back to 1996
comprehensive plan, the Commission is dealing with that zoning and land use.
He noted that industrial land uses are the most challenging to site, which is why
they came first in the new comp plan update. With that being said, Spartz noted
that the City has put an emphasis on move up housing and good jobs. This is not
to say Mills doesn't do a good job. Spartz stated that on the economic side, the
18
.
jobs from the I-IA are needed. He said~lthat he doesn't think it's good to have
mixed uses in an industrial area. Spart indicated that he hopes Mills would still
consider being here, but this is a conce for this area. Spartz noted that the
interchange just changed last fall, maybe there are other opportunities. Dragsten
clarified that Spartz was referring to perhaps another industrial opportunity.
Spartz agreed.
Gabler suggested the Commission take a vote.
Stumpf had no comments.
Dragsten reiterated that the Commission is looking at what would best serve the
City in the long run. If this is zoned commercial, more than likely, the City will
see other portions being requested for commercial.
Dragsten stated that while he can't speak for Mills, the visibility is important.
However, he stated that he thinks there are other sites in the City and although this
site is convenient, it is also convenient for other users.
.
Hilgart asked Grittman to go over the suggested PUD zoning. Grittman stated
that the first action the Commission would need to take is related to the
comprehensive plan. Then, the zoning would be considered. Ifthe Commission
is interested in commercial land use, the current ordinance offers a selection of
zoning districts; B-4 can support Mills. As an alternative, staff has proposed a
PUD zone, which for which a zoning ordinance would be written specifically for
that parcel. If that were the direction Commission would like to go, the City
would need to notice for that and consider at a later date.
Hilgart noted that the vote would probably be up to Gabler. Voight commented
that similar to Hilgart, his mind has changed since the discussion has started.
Dragsten noted that the other option is to table the item and clarify information,
then bring it back to the June meeting.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND
REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE MILLS FLEET FARM RETAIL STORE
AND MOTOR FUEL STATION USES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST CONTAINED WITHIN THE
CONCLUSIONS SECTION OF THE MAY 1,2007 STAFF REPORT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL FAILS, 2-3 WITH DRAGSTEN, GABLER, AND
SPARTZ IN DISSENT.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND
19
.
REZONING, BASED ON THE FIND GS FOR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST
CONTAINED WITHIN THE CONCLU IONS SECTION OF THE MAY 1,
2007 STAFF REPORT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER.
Voight asked if tabling the item would be an option. Dragsten stated that would
be his recommendation. It would seem to be in the Commission's best interest, as
there are certain things that do not apply to the Commission discussion. He stated
that he would be in favor of waiting.
Hilgart asked if Dragsten believes that the way the Commission votes will
determine how Council votes. Stumpf stated that there is a lot more detail the
Council will be asked to consider versus what the Commission is dealing with.
20
Dragsten asked for the procedure on withdrawing the motion. Grittman reviewed
that Spartz simply had to withdraw the motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION
TO DENY AND TO MOTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE
COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Development Stage Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Monticello-Big Lake
Hospital District to allow for the expansion of a medical office building.
Applicant: Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District
Planner Holien presented the staff report. Holien explained that the hospital has
prepared an application for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and
Preliminary and Final Plat for the construction of a 60,000 square foot clinic
addition. Holien stated that the proposed project also includes the construction of
a parking lot and construction of a parking garage. The subject site is located at
1013 Hart Boulevard and is zoned PZM, Performance Zone Mixed Use.
.
Holien stated that the applicant's revised plan indicates that the proposed
maintenance garage meets the district's required setback, but noted that by
ordinance, a rear yard setback variance can be accommodated by the PUD.
Holien stated that the applicant is seeking variances to the required number of
parking stalls, and minimum parking stall size. Holien indicated that parking will
consist of an additional 269 parking stalls. To accommodate the additional
parking, as well as access, the applicant is requesting vacation of Dayton Street.
The hospital has also provided proof of a joint parking agreement with Monticello
Middle School.
.
Holien reported that the plan reflects a ~arking total that is 4 stalls short, although
the overall site has adequate parking. S aff does not expect that the stall
deficiency will create a problem. Three ofthe proposed stalls do not meet the
minimum stall size requirement. These were reviewed at concept stage and do
not have a negative impact.
Holien stated that as noted, the applicant is requesting a number of vacations,
including Dayton Street, Hart Blvd. and a portion of East River Street. City staff
would support vacation of Dayton and Hart, but would request a drainage and
utility easement over Hart. These vacations will be considered as part of a
separate public hearing at the City Council. The City is not willing to vacate
River Street, but is willing to consider a license agreement for the hospital to
occupy the right of way as shown. The plan proposes two accesses and 4 parallel
parking spots.
.
Holien indicated that the applicant has met minimum landscaping requirements
and has provided for buffer yard landscaping that meets or exceeds ordinance
minimums with the exception of a stair location at River Street. Holien
commented that the City has requested a pedestrian crossing from Broadway to
River Street. As the City is considering the vacation of Dayton Street, staff is
requesting a pedestrian crossing. The configuration of the stairs prevents meeting
of the buffer yard requirements. Holien stated that the City has asked the
applicant to construct an ADA accessible ramp as part of the pedestrian access.
The applicant may want to comment on that issue.
Holien stated that the applicant has not submitted a sign plan. As they are not
aware of signage needs at this time, a separate application review and amendment
to PUD will be required.
Holien illustrated the building elevations, stating that the materials are consistent
with requirements and previous approvals. The applicant has also provided
garage elevations which show 5 garage doors facing east River. Holien reported
that the garage is served by one access.
Holien stated that the building lighting consists mostly of luminaries, but the City
has requested additional lighting at the pedestrian crossing.
The City Engineer and WSB have reviewed the application plans and provided
comments. Staff and the applicant reviewed those comments in a staff meeting.
Staff is recommending approval ofthe PUD and the applicant is aware ofthe
conditions outlined in the staff report.
.
Hilgart stated that the report indicated that the side setback for the district is
required to be at 20 feet. The plan proposes it at 10 feet. Holien stated that the 10
21
.
foot setback at the clinic is an internal p~operty line setback and is appropriate.
Dragsten clarified that the setback is bet}Veen buildings.
Dragsten asked if the buildings were notigOing to be connected. Holien noted
connection points, and stated that the ho pital and clinic are not completely
connected.
Voight asked if the parking requirements include the current clinic. Holien stated
that the 273 required are for the new clinic only. The parking for the rest of the
site is sufficient at this time and noted parking arrangements with the school and
Mississippi Shores. Vought asked if those parking facilities are used for
overflow. Holien replied that would be a question for the applicant.
Spartz asked if there has been any consideration of a walkway for Broadway.
Holien answered that there is a crosswalk in place across Broadway. Spartz
clarified that there is no discussion about crossing over Broadway. Holien
confirmed.
.
Dragsten stated that when the cross easement comes to an end, the applicant
would be short of parking. Dragsten asked if there is an expiration to the
agreement. Holien stated that she doesn't believe there is an expiration date.
Grittman noted that the parking arrangement would be part of the PUD agreement
between the school and hospital. Dragsten asked what happens if the school
doesn't want the agreement. Grittman stated that the hospital would need to
amend their PUD.
Stumpf asked if it is common to vacate streets and leave an access point.
Grittman stated that the access points are already there and that there is no
crossing through the parking lot from Broadway to River Street. O'Neill noted
the pedestrian access that is to be provided across the parking area.
Dragsten stated that he thought that in the concept stage PUD, they had proposed
to close everything on Broadway, enter where lights are and then access to west
bound traffic only from Broadway. Grittman stated that he believes that there is a
median, so it is right in right out only.
Drasgten asked about the two parcels on Hart Boulevard that the hospital is
seeking to acquire. Holien stated that the applicant is requesting to purchase those
properties. Parcel sketches have been provided.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
.
Barb Schwientek, Administrator for the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital, addressed
the Commission and introduced Linda Dircks, administrator ofthe Monticello
Clinic, Bob Verstraete with BWBR Architects, Matt Swenson with Landform
Engineering and Dean Williamson with Frauenshuh Companies.
22
.
Schwientek stated that the parking agree~ent is reciprocal with the school. She
indicated that the reason they are asking for the right in-right out, is that when the
helicopter is positioned, they do not allo traffic on Hart. She stated that while
the helicopter isn't there a long time, the area is controlled during that time.
Schwientek stated that they do recognize the need for the pedestrian crossway.
She indicated that it is not a ramp, and that they do have some discussions on the
table on whether they will accept liability. She indicated that they are concerned
about liability during wintertime.
Matt Swenson, Landform Engineering, explained that regarding the ADA access,
they are not allowed to have 8% slope except indoors. So, the plan is for a 5%
slop sidewalk. He indicated that the have sent a concept to client and City to
determine whether it is feasible.
.
Dragsten asked ifthere is no other connection between River and Broadway.
Swenson stated that right now there is no connection except Dayton Street, which
isn't ADA compliant. Schwientek stated that internally they can get to River.
Grittrnan clarified that the intent is to provide a public access. Staff is working
with the applicant on that item and that the City attorney has some ideas on
limiting the liability.
Gabler asked BWBR if they would have the project construction on their web
carn so that people can monitor the process. Verstraete stated that they are
debating the merits; it is a possibility, but they don't have an answer at this time.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Spartz stated that he would like to see if they would look at walkway. Schwientek
noted that the hospital district paid for the stoplight.
23
O'Neill stated that the City just applied for ISTEA funds for pathway
improvements. There were questions on where pedestrian crossings should be.
Perhaps this would be a location for next round.
Dragsten asked about the helipad and right in-right out condition. He inquired if
there are plans for helipad to be moved with growth. Schwientek stated that not at
this time, as right now it is accessible to emergency in the best way possible.
Dragsten asked if there is much left for future phases. Schwientek stated that they
plan on a parking ramp and that there are two parcels of property that are still
available, that they are interested in purchasing. Schwientek referenced possible
extension along East Broadway.
.
.
.
2.
3.
1.
5.
6.
. 7.
Dragsten asked about the maintenance garage and the variance requested.
Schwientek stated that the variance isn~ needed with the current plan. Dragsten
inquired ifthe intent is still not to put a ditional traffic on River Street.
Schwientek stated that the only additio al traffic will be from the parallel parking
stalls reserved for cancer patients. Dragsten noted that it will be important to
keep things off of River Street. Schwientek noted that they had met with River
Street residents, and they do not object to the parking. Dragsten just wanted to
confirm that traffic should stay off River Street.
Dragsten confirmed that they would need a change in the PUD to expand. Staff
confirmed. Dragsten asked if the River Street garage is just for storage and not
for on-duty ambulances. Schwientek stated that they are not housing ambulances.
They will be looking in the future at locating those off-site.
Dragsten asked if Schwientek was familiar with Exhibit Z. She indicated that she
is and has no problem meeting the conditions with exception to providing the
sidewalk ramps. Dragsten stated that that item would be worked out with City
versus a condition.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, CG TO APPROVE, MOTION
CARRIED. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE MONTICELLO-BIG LAKE
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD
AND THE PZM DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN
EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS:
1. In lieu of vacating River Street, the City shall require that the applicant sign a license
agreement holding the City harmless against any liabilities associated with the proposed drive
aisle constructed within the City's right-of-way.
Drainage and utility easements shall be placed over all vacated Hart Boulevard right-of-way
areas
An alternate paving material shall be used through the parking lot to delineate the pedestrian
crossing.
The lljl~lioant shall eenGtruet an f.Df. aoeesGilll. ~eaeGtrian fa",!, with landings in a<ldities te
the ~re~e'ea stair;;ay is the green s~ae. eefy;..n the ~edcisg let ana East RiOo'er Stre.t.
The applicant shall provide additional shrubs on the west side of the clinic building to screen
the perallel parking stalls from the adjacent residential use.
The total number of plant units on the site shall not be decreesed with the construction of the
required pedestrian ramp.
Additional lighting shall be required adjacent to the proposed pedestrian crossing. Said
lighting shall not spill over onto adjacent residential properties or the River Street right-of-
way.
24
.
8. Any wall pack lighting shall be full cutoffl~ghting.
9. Any signage proposed for the site in thele shall require a separate application and an
amendment to the PUD.
10. The applicant shall comply with all reco endations of engineering staff, as outlined in the
memo from Bruce Westby dated April 20, :2007 and the memo from WSB dated April 23,
2007.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION
CARRIED, 5-0.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development for a 7.9 acre proposed commercial development. Applicant: Mike
Schneider/251 Partnership
Planner Holien reviewed the staff report. Holien explained that the development
area proposed is within the Orderly Annexation Area, and the applicant will be
required to submit an application for annexation after receiving approval on a
preliminary plat.
.
Holien described the proposed concept plan. The applicant is proposing a 50
room hotel, a 5000 square foot restaurant, and 3 office buildings. The concept
plan demonstrates use of MnDOT property for significant ponding and parking
needs. Holien reported that upon approval of any concept PUD, additional
approvals are required and have been listed in the report.
Holien stated that due to the nature of the proposed land uses, a B-3 land use
would be most appropriate. Due to the size of the site, setbacks requirements
could be met, but the applicant has indicated a variance would be requested for
one ofthe buildings.
Holien stated that the current concept plan illustrates 130 parking stalls on land
not owned by the applicant. Staff has talked to the applicant about options
regarding the plan and property control. Pending a new application and
configuration, staff recommends tabling.
Drasgten commented that it will be interesting to see how the applicant will get all
that is proposed on the site.
Stumpf asked what portion of County Highway 75 the City has taken back.
O'Neill commented that currently the state is holding all of that property.
.
Mike Schneider, applicant and property owner, addressed the Commission.
Schneider stated that they had decided to show the whole concept, fully realizing
that they couldn't build buildings on the highway, but wanting to show what the
25
Page 1 of 1
. Dawn Grossinger
From: Ollie Koropchak
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11 :20 AM
To: Dawn Grossinger
Cc: Jeff O'Neill
Subject: Additional May 29 agenda item
Consideration of a request from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) requesting the City Council
approve a loan to the HRA for purchase of the property located at 201 East Broadway.
.
.
5/21/2007
.
I
end result would be. Schneider distribU~ed a new sketch plan illustrating only the
property under his control. !
Dragsten asked about the proximity to 1-94. Schumann noted that the City is
taking an active role in aiding the applicant in acquiring the property in order to
maintain tree line and develop the plan as presented.
Dragsten asked the applicant to come back with schematics and a little bit about
quality of materials. Dragsten asked whether the properties would be leased or
owned. Schneider stated hat it depends ~m the end user. Schumann noted that full
architectural and site details are required at development stage. Dragsten replied
that it would be nice to have preliminary details, if available, in the packet.
.
Anderson addressed the Commission on a related signage item. Anderson noted
that the applicant has two trailers on the site with signage. This is not permissible
by either County or City regulations. Anderson reported that the City has
contacted County Planner Salkowski relarding this. The County has sent a notice
of violation. The applicant has 15 days 0 remove the signage. Anderson stated
that he would like the Planning Commi sion to encourage the applicant to remove
them as soon as possible. Anderson staled that via City ordinance, the signage
allowed would be less than this. O'Neill stated that we wouldn't be so tough on
this, except that we have a project provision for this type of development signage.
Schneider stated to the Commission that he will remove the signs. Schneider
stated that he was told that as it wasn't in the City, it was not a staff concern.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR
CONCEPT ST AGE APPROVAL TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO
RESUBMIT A CONCEPT PLAN LIMITING THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT AREA TO LAND UNDER THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL
AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A SKETCH PLAN
FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT AREA, INCLUDING AREA OUTSIDE
OF THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL THAT MAYBE INCLUDED IN FUTURE
PHASES OF THE PROJECT, AND TO REQUIRE REMOVAL OF SIGNAGE
AS NOTED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
10. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO ADJOURN. MOTION
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
.
26
.
.
.
Planning Connnission Agenda - 06105/07
5.
Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Development
Stal!:e Planned Unit Development and Pteliminarv Plat for Villas on Elm. Applicant:
UP Development (AS) I
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On June 6th, 2006, the Planning Connnission ~eviewed and approved a development stage
planned unit development and preliminary plat application for the proposed Villas on Elm
project, submitted by UP Development. The City Council approved the preliminary plat and
PUD on June 26th, 2006.
The Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD approved for the Villas on Elm is a III unit
residential development project on the former Ruff Auto property. The project is proposed to be
divided into two phases. Phase I is located south of West 6th Street and east of Elm Street. For
this phase, the developer proposed attached townhome units in a combination of 3-unit and 4-unit
structures. Phase II is located south of West 6th Street and west of Elm Street. The developer
proposed a combination of detached and attac~ed townhomes, as well as single family homes for
this phase. Both sites are zoned PZ-M, Perforlnance Zone Mixed Use.
The Council's approval of the applications was conditioned on a number of items. A letter
regarding those conditions and next steps was sent to the applicant on July 26th, 2006, and is
attached for reference. Any extension approval would include continuation of those conditions.
They are required to be met prior to any consideration of a fmal plat.
Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD and preliminary plat are set to expire on June
27th, 2007. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to
non-use after one year. Further, the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance requires that preliminary
plats be fInal platted within one year. NotifIcation regarding these expirations was provided to
applicants. The notifIcation did include information relating to the ability to seek an extension.
By ordinance, a letter requesting extension must be received at least 30 days prior to the
expiration of the permit. As such, an extension letter was received on May 15th, 2007. The
extension request is attached. A review of the extension petition is required by the Planning
Connnission, with their reconunendation going forward to the City Council. The request for
extension does not clarify any proposed changes, nor a timeline for submittal of revised plans
meeting the approved conditions.
The extension letter sent by the applicant does not reference a specifIc timeline for the extension
period. Staff would reconunend extension of the conditional use permit for one additional year,
to June 26th, 2008.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to reconunend extension ofthe June 26th, 2006 Conditional Use Permit for
Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Villas on Elm to
June 26th, 2008, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to
the extension.
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the June 26th, 2006 Conditional Use
Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Villas
on Elm
3. Motion of other.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the extension for One year, with assigmnent of approved
conditions, as noted above.
SUPPORTING DATA .
Exhibit A: Applicant Extension RequestJ
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat and Develop ent Stage PUD Plan
Exhibit C: Conditions Letter dated July 2 th, 2006
.
.
2
eJA
.
May 14, 2007
Dear Angela,
I would like to request and extension for my approval on my project Villas on Elm.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Rollings
U P Development, LLC
4550 Weston Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
(612) 770-8885
.
.
.
5C
July 26th, 2006
MONTICELLO
Mr. Tom Rollings
UP Development
4550 Weston Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
RE: Villas on Elm
Dear Mr. Rollings,
This letter serves as an update on the status of the Villas on Elm project in terms of your next
steps in the City's review process.
On June 26th, 2006, the City Council voted to approve the conditional use permit for development
stage PUD and preliminary plat request for the project. The conditions of that approval are as
follows:
.
1. The applicant shall verify actual building designs for single family homes, attached townhomes
and detached townhomes.
2. An alternate design shall be submitted for the rear of all detached townhomes to create a more
attractive streetscape.
3. An alternate design shall be submitted for single family homes adhering to R-2A standards.
4. The applicant shan submit a revised landscape plan for the single family homes illustrating
compliance with R-2A standards.
5. A six foot landscaped buffer shall be installed to separate all shared driveways.
6. An alternate parking plan shall be submitted reducing the size of both head-in parking bays in
Phase II and restoring a portion of the usable open space.
7. On-street parking shall be limited to one side of each road. Hours of on-street parking shall be
limited to prevent overnight parking and on-street parking shan be prohibited during
snowplowing season. Dates of said season and appropriate hours shan be established by the City
Council.
8. The applicant shan submit all documentation relating to enviromnental concerns of the site.
9. The applicant shan comply with an recommendations of the City Engineer.
10. The developer shall submit homeowner's association documents.
11. All unitlhome designs shan be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for
approval.
12. The sidewalks on either side of Elm Street shall be revised to follow the ROW.
13. The sidewalk on the west side of Elm Street should be extended to the northern edge of the site
and the sidewalk on the east side of Elm Street should be extended south of Street B to the edge
of the site.
14. A street lighting plan shall be submitted demonstrating that garage lighting win not be used in
lieu of street lights.
15. Other conditions as recommended by the City Council.
.
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1. Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax (763) 295.4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362' (763) 295.3170. Fax (763) 271-3272
.
.
.
Tom Rollings
July 26th, 2006
Page 2
These co~ditions will be supplied to Wright coun~1 in an order of recording for the conditional
use penmt.
Prior to consideration of acceptance of constructionl plans for the project, the above conditions
must be addressed, with the exception of those relatr,d to building designs. All building designs
must be approved by the Planning Commission andlCity Council prior to final stage PUD
approval and any building permit approvals. A cOIIJ.plete set of revised preliminary plat and
development stage PUD plans in satisfaction of the~es conditions is required to meet the approval
and allow for further review of this project.
Additionally, engineering staff has completed a thorough review of the current plan submittal and
has the following comments which also need to be idreSSed in the revised submittal and in
future preparation of construction documents. A let er from WSB Water Resources Engineer Phil
Elkin is also attached for reference.
General Comments (some may have been addressed in r 'sed plans submitted to the City Council)
I) Manholes shall not be located in wheel tracks.
2) Mainline utilities shall not be located under curbs.
3) Hydrants on curves shall be located on the insidt of the curve.
4) Backyard drains shall be a minimum of 4-feet~' depth to prevent freezing.
5) Provide for overland drainage in case back yard ains freeze.
6) All drainage shall be contained within existing r proposed drainage easements.
7) All drainage entering the development from off-site shall be picked up in drainage easements.
8) All ponds shall include a 10-foot wide by I-foot deep safety bench beginning at the normal water
level.
9) All ponds shall be designed to be accessible by maintenance vehicles within a drainage and utility
easement.
10) Storm sewer pipe for all public systems and connection to all public systems shall be Rep.
I I) Include all applicable City of Monticello Standld Plates in plan set.
Plan Sheet No. I of8; Cover Sheet
I) Provide all required information and notes per City of Monticello Plan Requirements and Design
Guidelines.
2) Provide actual street names.
Plan Sheet No.2 of8; Preliminary Plat
I) Work with City staff to address plat issues along Elm Street and 7th Street as discussed at 6/26/06
City Council meeting. The right of way on Elm Street and plat boundaries need to be verified
with the title work and the City would require a 66-foot right of way to allow for adequate
boulevard width and sidewalk placement within the right of way.
2) Provide actual street names.
3) Provide required information and notes per City of Monticello Plan Requirements and Design
Guidelines.
4) Provide easement for storm sewer from CB2 to new project storm sewer connection (CBMH2?).
See note II for plan sheet 4 of 8.
5) Provide easement for watermain between lots 19 and 20 if connecting to 8" DIP stub near lot 20.
See note 12 for plan sheet 3 of 8.
.
Tom Rollings
July 26th, 2006
Page 3
Plan Sheet No.3 of 8; Preliminary Utility Plan
I) Provide actual street names.
2) Provide stationing along all streets.
3) Revise note 8 to read "ALL UNUSED EXISTING SANITARY..."
4) Provide appropriate line types for all existing utilities.
5) Show existing watermain along 6'" Street east of Elm Street.
6) Provide directional flow arrows in plan view for each sanitary sewer line.
7) Provide structure numbers for all sanitary manholes.
8) Provide profiles for all sanitary sewer and watennain.
9) Provide plan view locations of all service lines (sanitary sewer and watermain).
10) Provide a minimum of two valves at three-leg watermain intersections, and three valves at four-leg
intersections. Locate gate valves in-line with right-of-way.
11) Locate hydrants at intersections and property lines.
12) The City would prefer to connect to the existing 8" DIP watennain stub west of Elm Street near
lot 20, rather than dig up Elm Street to the north. Please investigate and respond.
.
Plan Sheet No.4 of 8; Preliminary Street & Stonn Sewer Plan
1) Provide actual street names.
2) Provide stationing along all streets.
3) Provide comer radii for all streets (at least one per intersection when labeled "typ").
4) Provide profiles for all proposed streets.
5) Label typical street sections for each street (City Plate No. 5000 or 5001).
6) Label required curb and gutter removal.
7) Label required saw cuts.
8) Provide sidewalk west of Elm Street to north end of plat.
9) Provide sidewalk east of Elm Street to south end of plat.
10) Relocate sidewalk along Elm Street to I' off right-of-way. Provide minimum 6' boulevard (face
of curb to edge of walk) where insufficient right-of-way exists.
11) CB2 is shown connecting to a private stonn sewer system. CB2 must connect to stonn sewer
within this project (possibly CBMH2?).
12) Provide profiles for all stonn sewer (flared end sections, pipes and structures).
13) ascI should be relabeled OCS!.
14) Directional flow arrow for west pond outlet to aesl should be aligned over stonn sewer.
15) Proposed retaining wall construction is shown within drainage and utility easements on south end
of development, which is not allowed.
Plan Sheet No. 5 of8; Preliminary Grading Plan
1) Provide actual street names.
2) Provide stationing along all streets.
3) Add a rock construction entrance at east end of Y, street.
4) Clearly label existing contours between 6 and 6 ,streets east of development.
Plan Sheet No.6 of 8; Tree Survey
1) No comments.
Plan Sheet No.7 and 8 of 8; Details
I) No comments.
~.
f"":TI-':l... ...~, uIIIT.n~Tnp t,..." ".~....., .TH......_,,"'''', " ...-"t"'tTntftT"..-~..7'<nn>l""r""'_ ......uu,.^..............l'..............."'"
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 06/05/07
6.
Consideration of a request for extension of a Preliminary Plat for Hidden Forest.
Applicant: Monticello 39 (AS)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On June 7th, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a rezoning and preliminary
plat application for the proposed Hidden Forest project.
The proposed Hidden Forest site is 96 acres in area and is located south of County Highway 39,
near the east boundary ofthe City. The project includes a request for rezoning from its current A-
0, Agricultural-Open Space designation, to a mix ofR-1 and R-IA zoning.
The City Council approved a fmal plat for the project a full year later, on June 12th, 2006. The
Council's approval of the final plat was conditioned on the execution of a development contract
and submission of required securities. The final plat consisted of 56 units on approximately 27
acres, with the balance of the site platted as an outlot.
The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that all preliminary platted property be final platted
within I year, and all phases of multi-phase projects be finally platted within 3 years. The
Subdivision Ordinance further requires that all approved final plats be recorded within 100 days.
However, due to market conditions, the developers have not recorded their fmal plat, nor have
they executed a development contract. By ordinance, the final plat for Hidden Forest is null and
void.
The developer has indicated that they are still interested in pursuing development of the site, and
as such, have requested an extension of the approval for original preliminary plat. Although the
ordinance requires an extension of preliminary plat to be requested within I year of approval, the
approval of the fmal plat does present the Commission with an opportunity to consider this
extension request.
In considering the request, staff believes it important to reconunend conditions for the extension.
These conditions include:
1. A new final plat must be submitted for review and approval by June 26th, 2008. The June
12th, 2006 plat of Hidden Forest is null and void.
2. Finance plans discussed in relationship to this project will need to be re-evaluated prior to any
final plat consideration.
3. The applicant shall supply all required easements for onsite drainage and for drainage to the
Mississippi River. (These easements are needed to solve drainage issues that make the
development feasible.)
4. The applicant is required to pay the expenses associated with the review of the preliminary
plat, which total $37,682.89. Payment of these funds is required by June 26th, 2008, or the
preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. Until the time that the City receives
payment to cover expenses, no further review of any portion of the project will conunence.
These expenses noted are expenses incurred during the review and analysis of the preliminary
plat. It should be noted that the level of expenses are not typical of a preliminary plat review, but
were higher due to the complexity of utility service. These expenses exceed the initial amount on
deposit for preliminary plat review.
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
The extension letter sent by the applicant does not reference a specific timeline for the extension
period. If the Planning Commission chooses to extend the preliminary plat, staff would
recommend extension for one year, to June 26th,! 2008.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend extension of the June 7th, 2005 Preliminary Plat for Hidden Forest
to June 7th, 2008, with the conditions as noted below:
a. A new final plat must be submitted for review and approval by June 26th, 2008.
b. Finance plans discussed in relationship to this project will need to be re-evaluated prior to any
final plat consideration. j'
c. The applicant shall supply all required asements for onsite drainage and for drainage to the
Mississippi River.
d. The applicant is required to pay the ex enses associated with the review of the preliminary
plat, which total $37,682.89. Payment fthese funds is required by January I, 2008, or the
preliminary plat shall be considered n I and void. These expenses exceed the initial amount
on deposit for preliminary plat review. Until the time that the City receives payment to cover
expenses, no further review of any pardon of the project will commence.
i
i
2. Motion to recommend denial of an exteJ,sion of the June 7th, 2006 Preliminary Plat for
Hidden Forest, based on a finding to be !made by the Planning Commission.
i
i
I
3. Motion of other.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff would only recommend approval ofthe extension with the conditions as noted.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Site Location Map
Applicant Extension Request
Preliminary Plat
Subdivision Ordinance
.
2
t;JA
.
.
SUBJECT SITE
.
&6
.
Monticello 39, Inc.
3600 Holly Lane NJth, Suite #100
Plymouth, MN 55447
Office: (763) 550-1961 Fax: (763) 550-3913
May 4, 2007
City of Monticello
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Time Extension Request
Hidden Forest Development Project, Monticello, MN
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
.
Please accept this letter as a request for a one year time extension to file and record the
final plat for Hidden Forest 1 st Addition. Present housing market conditions for this area
are not conducive to moving forward with the project at this time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
(34 {).~<.
l.~
Bradley Paumen,
Monticello 39, LLC
Cc: File 00258
.
.
.
.
SECTION:
11-3-1 :
11-3-2:
11-3-3:
11-3-1:
11-3-2:
rP
I
I
CHAPT~R 3
PROCEDURE
Procedure
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
PROCEDURE: Prior to formal plat review by the Planning Commission, the applicant
is encouraged to present a sketch plan to the Planning Commission for purposes of
informally discussing, to present his intentions for development of the property, and be
able to obtain the views and opinions of the City Planning Commission.
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
(A) FILING: Fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary plat shall be filed with the City
Clerk. The required filing fee as established in Chapter 10 shall be paid, and
any necessary applications for variances from the provisions of this ordinance
shall be filed with the required fee before the proposed plat shall be considered
officially file. All plats shall be accompanied by an abstractor's certificate,
properly certified, identifying the owner of the property in question and the
owners of all properties situated within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the
boundary of the property in question. Applications for a Preliminary Plat shall
be due no later than eight (8) weeks plus one (1) day prior to the Planning
Commission meeting at which the item is to be considered. Applications that
are deemed incomplete as of that date shall be returned to the applicant in
accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. ~ 15.99. Applications for
Preliminary Plats that consist of nineteen (19) or fewer residential units or non-
residential plats of five (5) or fewer acres may, at the discretion of the Zoning
Administrator, be placed on an earlier Planning Commission agenda, but in no
case shall said meeting be sooner than four (4) weeks and one (1) day from the
date of a complete application. (#426, 7111/05)
(B) HEARING: Upon receipt of said application, the City Clerk shall set a public
hearing for the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report upon findings and
make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of said hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing,
and written notification of said hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days
prior to all owners of/and identified on the above-mentioned abstractor's
certificate.
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XVChapt 3/Page I
.
(C)
I
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORTS: After the public hearing has been
set, the City Administrator sh~1 instruct the staff to prepare technical reports
(where appropriate) and provide general assistance in preparing a
recommendation on the action to the City Council.
(D) REVIEW BY OTHER COMMISSIONS OR mRISDICTIONS: When
appropriate, the City Administrator shall file copies of the preliminary plat with
the Park and Recreation Commission and/or Wright County for their review
and comment.
(E) REPORT TO COUNCIL: The Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council within sixty (60) days following the public
hearing.
(F) CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
I. The Council shall act upon the preliminary plat within one hundred
twenty (120) days oft4e date on which it was officially filed. If the
recommendation ofth~ Planning Commission has not been received in
time to meet the requirement, the Council may act on the preliminary
plat without such recommendation.
.
2.
If the preliminary plat is not approved by the City Council, the reasons
for such action shall be recorded in the proceedings of the Council and
transmitted to the applicant. If the preliminary plat is approved, such
approval shall not constitute final acceptance of the layout. Subsequent
approval will be required of the engineering proposals and other
features and requirements as specified by this ordinance to be indicated
on the final plat. The City Council may require such revisions in the
preliminary plat and final plat as it deems necessary for the health,
safety, general welfare, and convenience of the City of Monticello.
11-3-3:
FINAL PLAT: After the preliminary plat has been approved, the final plat may be
submitted for approval as follows:
.
(A) APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Following approval of the
Preliminary Plat by the City Council, a Final Plat may be submitted for
approval. The Zoning Administrator shall place the proposed Final Plat on the
agenda for the next City Council which is no less than three (3) weeks later
than the date of submission. No Final Plat application shall be considered
complete unless that applicant shall have also submitted a revised Preliminary
Plat which as been revised to reflect all required conditions of approval, a
signed copy of the Development Agreement for the area subject to the Final
Plat, shall have paid all bills due for processing of the Preliminary Plat, and has
provided evidence of adequate financial security for completion of the
construction work in the proposed plat. If the City Council determines it is
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 2
.
necessary, the final plat shall ~e filed with the City Clerk and submitted to the
Planning Commission at least 'twenty (20) days prior to a Commission meeting
at which consideration is requested. During the said twenty (20) days, the City
staff shall examine the final plat and prepare a recommendation to the Planning
Commission. Approval, disapproval, or any delay in decision of the final plat
will be conveyed to the subdivider within ten (10) days after the meeting of the
City Planning Commission at which such plat was considered. In case the plat
is disapproved, the subdivider shall be notified in writing of the reason for such
action and what requirements shall be necessary to meet the approval of the
Commission. If the plat is disapproved, a waiting period of one hundred eighty
(180) days shall lapse before another application can be filed on that tract of
land. In cases where the preliminary plat is approved, the final plat must be
filed within one (1) year of the preliminary plat approval or the approval is not
valid. (#426, 7/11/05)
.
(B) APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL: After review of the final plat by the
Planning Commission, if necessary, such final plat, together with the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, shall be submitted to the City
Council for approval. The City Council has the option of requesting a public
hearing if it is determined necessary on the final plat. If accepted, the final plat
shall be approved by resolution, which resolution shall provide for the
acceptance of all agreements for basic improvements, public dedication, and
other requirements as indicated by the City Council. If disapproved, the
grounds for any refusal to approve a plat shall be set forth in the proceedings of
the Council and reported to the person or persons applying for such approval.
(#8, 2/23/76)
(C) RECORDING FINAL PLAT: If the final plat is approved by the City Council,
the subdivider shall record it with the County Recorder within one hundred
(100) days after said approval. If the subdivider fails to so record the final plat,
the approval shall be considered void, unless a request for time extension is
submitted in writing and approved by the City Council prior to the expiration of
the one hundred (100) day period. The subdivider shall, immediately upon
recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the
final plat showing evidence ofrecording. No building permits shall be let for
construction of any structure on any lot said plat until the City has received
evidence of the plat being recorded by the County. (#412, 8/23/04)
.
(D) RECORDING OF MULTIPLE-PHASED PLATS: Ifapreliminaryplat is
final platted in stages, unless otherwise provided for in the development
contract, all stages must be final platted into lots and blocks (not outlots) within
three (3) years after the preliminary plat has been approved by the City Council.
If the final plats are not approved and recorded in accordance with this time
frame, the preliminary plat approval shall be considered void, unless a request
for time extension is submitted in writing and approved by the City Council
prior to the expiration of the three (3) year period. (#412,8/23/04)
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 3
Planning Connnission Agenda- 06105/07
.
7. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stal!e
Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed-use commercial proiect to be
known as Monticello Professional Center. Applicant: 251 Partnership/Mike
Schneider. (NAC)
BACKGROUND
251 Partnership/Mike Schneider is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept
Stage Planned Unit Development approval and for the construction of a mixed-use
commercial development located at the intersection of County Road 75 and Meadow
Oak Drive, southwest of Interstate 94. The site is 7.93 acres in size and is currently
located outside of the City limits, in Monticello Township, but is within the City's
Orderly Annexation Area.
.
The Planning Commission initially reviewed the application for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development at their May 1, 2007 meeting.
At that time, the submitted site plan included land that was not under the applicant's
control. The proposed concept plan included land owned by MnDOT as part of the
development project for parking stalls, landscaping, ponding, and a hotel building.
The applicant did not demonstrate ownership or any timeline for acquisition of any of
this right-of-way land. In the event that this land would not be acquired, or would not
be acquired in a timely manner, the parking, setbacks, and overall site layout would
have potentially required modification.
Therefore, the Planning Commission tabled action on the request in order to allow the
applicant to submit a revised concept plan, illustrating the proposed development area
limited to land only under the applicant's control. This report addresses the newly
revised concept plan and provides general feedback on the sketch plan for the entire
project.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has submitted a revised concept plan that has been downsized to
include only land under the applicant's control, containing three office buildings. The
following lists the sizes of the proposed structures:
Building 1:
Building 2:
Building 3:
12,000 Total Square Foot Single-Story Office Building
23,800 Total Square Foot Two-Story Office Building
23,800 Total Square Foot Two-Story Office Building
.
It was recommended that the applicant submit a sketch plan for the entire
development area, including the area outside of the applicant's control that may be
included in future phases of the project, in order to give the Planning Commission
and Council a clear idea of the entire proposed development. As a part of the overall
sketch plan submittal, the applicant is proposing a mixed-use commercial center,
consisting of a total of four office buildings, a hotel, and a restaurant. The remaining
structures to be proposed are as follows: another 10,000 square foot single story
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
office building, a 50-room hotel, and a,5,OOO square foot restaurant. However, this
report addresses only the area under thf applicant's control for the General Concept
Stage. Timing of future phases of this project has not been determined at this time.
,
Upon approval of any Concept Stage plun application, the following additional
applications shall be required: I
. An annexation request application
. An application for rezoning
. Preliminary Plat and Development Stage Planned Unit Development
application
Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located within the Low Density
Residential Expansion Area according to the Comprehensive Plan.
General Concept Stage Submittals. The submission requirements for the General
Concept Stage portion of the Planned Unit Development process are listed in Section
20-3.
The following information still needs to be submitted regarding the General
Concept Stage:
.
I. General Information
(d) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property
to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal,
beneficial, tenancy, and contractual interests held in or affecting the
subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or
registered property report and other such evidence as the City Attorney
may require to show the status of the title or control of the subject
property.
2. Present Status
(b) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property
and all lands within one thousand (1,000) feet ofthe subject property.
(c) A map depicting the existing development of the subject property and all
land within one thousand (1,000) feet thereof and showing the precise
location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains, and
storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one
hundred (100) feet of the subject property.
3. A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market
which it is intended to serve, showing its relationship to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged,
and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring
property in accordance with the applicable regulations ofthe City.
4. Site Conditions. The following shall be included:
(c) Slope analysis.c
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 06/05107
.
(d) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands, and streams and flood
plains within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property.
(f) Existing drainage patterns.
(g) Vistas and significant views,
(h) Soil conditions as they affe~ development.
6. A tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations ofland use expressed in
acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the
following:
(a) Area devoted to residential uses.
(b) Area devoted to residential uses by building type.
(c) Area devoted to common o*n space.
(d) Area devoted to public ope~ space.
(e) Approximate area devoted to streets.
(f) Approximate area devoted to and number of off-street parking and loading
spaces and related access.
(g) Approximate area and floor area devoted to commercial uses.
(h) Approximate area and floor area devoted to industrial or office uses.
7. When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending
beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such
stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and
completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total
PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or
constructed during each such stage and the overall chronology of development
to be followed from stage to stage.
8. When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open
space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be
made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. If
it is proposed that such open space is owned and/or maintained by any entity
other than a governmental authority, copies of the proposed articles of
incorporation and bylaws of such entity shall be submitted.
9. General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with
respect to property include in the proposed PUD.
10. Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary, and storm
sewers.
.
.
Zoning. As was stated, the property is currently located in Monticello Township, but
within the Orderly Annexation Area. The property is surrounded by rights-of-way,
Interstate 94 to the north and County Highway 75 to the south. The property
surrounding the rights-of-way is located within the city. The property to the north is
zoned Single Family Residential, and the property to the south is zoned Residential
PUD. Rezoning of the land is dependent upon approval of an annexation request.
Due to the land uses proposed, B-3 zoning appears to be most appropriate for the site.
The purpose of the B-3, Highway Business District, is to provide for and limit the
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05107
.
establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service
activities. Offices, hotels, and restaural1ts are all permitted uses in the B-3 District.
Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following chart demonstrates the applicable
performance standards of the B-3 District. The submitted site plan is not to scale;
therefore the measurements are merely estimates and are not accurate.
Required Proposed
Current Lot Building I Building 2 Building 3
Lot Area N/A 7.9 acres N/A NiA N/A
Lot Width 100 feet 1,034 feet N/A NiA N/A
Front Yard 30 feet N/A 55 feet 120 feet 120 feet
Setback
(County Highway
75)
Side Yard 10 feet NiA + 10 feet + 10 feet + 10 feet
Setback
Rear Yard 30 feet N/A 80 feet 60 feet 50 feet
Setback
(Interstate 94)
Setback Between May be flexed N/A 195 feet-Bldg.2 60 feet-Bldg. 3 60 feet-Bldg. 2
Buildim!S with a P.D.D. 195 ft. -Bldg I
Building Height 2 stories max N/A 1 story 2 stories 2 stories
.
Due to the size of the site, it appears as though setback requirements could be met.
While some degree of flexibility may be allowed through a PUD, the Ordinance does
not allow flexibility to the perimeter setbacks.
Parking. The concept plan proposes a total of284 parking stalls for the three office
buildings. The parking requirement for office space is three spaces plus at least one
stall for each 200 square feet of floor area. "Floor area" is determined on the basis of
the exterior floor area dimensions of the building times the number of floors, minus
ten percent. For each building, ten percent of the gross floor area is estimated to be
reserved for utilities, hallways, restrooms, and the like.
The parking calculations for the three office buildings are as follows:
Building 1
(80 flx 150 ft)
Building 2
(70 ft x 180 ft)
Building 3
(70 ft x 180 ft)
12,000 s.f. x 1 story =
12,000 s.f.
1st story = 12,600 s.f.
2nd story = 11,200 s.f.
I st story = 12,600 s.f.
2nd sto = 11 ,200 s. f.
23,800 s.f.
23,800 s.f.
.
Gross square footage:
Utilities, hallways, restrooms, etc.:
Net s uare footage:
One stall/200 s.f. of floor area:
12,000 + 23,800 + 23,800 =
59,600 x 0.10 =
59,600 - 5,960 =
53,640/200 =
59,600 s.f.
5,960 s.f.
53,640 s.f.
268.20 + 9 = 278 spaces
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
As proposed, the site exceeds the minimum requirement for parking stalls. As was
stated earlier, the overall sketch plan includes plans to also construct another 10,000
square foot single-story office building, a 50 room hotel, and a 5,000 square foot
restaurant. Therefore, adequate space f~r additional parking stalls must be available
for the three additional future buildingsi Ifthe entire sketch plan were approved,
some overlap in uses would be expected (i.e., restaurant guests staying at hotel, office
workers eating at restaurant).
The submitted concept plan does not contain any dimensions or a scale, therefore, the
size of the parking stalls is not known. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate
that each parking stall is a minimum of9 feet wide and 20 feet in length.
.
Curbing. All off-street parking areas and driveways in commercial areas are
required to have a six inch non-surmountable continuous concrete curb around the
perimeter of the parking area and driveways.
Said perimeter curb barrier shall be located no closer than eleven feet to any lot line
as measured from the lot line to the face ofthe curb. Portions ofthe proposed curb
barrier appear to directly abut the property line, encroaching on the required setback.
Staff is concerned that adjusting the curb barrier to meet the required setback would
result in the loss of multiple parking spaces. The applicant shall be required submit a
revised plan illustrating an adequate curb setback and how parking will function as
revised.
Circulation and Access. Access to the site is proposed at two locations on the south
side of the property, off County Road 75. As presented, any access onto County
Road 75 shall require review by Wright County and an access permit. The
dimensions of intemal drive lanes have not been provided. All internal drives shall
be a minimum of 24 feet in width, wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic.
The applicant shall demonstrate that this requirement has been met.
The consulting Engineer has recommentd that the applicant revise the entrance
configuration to the easterly most parki g lot to distinguish it from the existing street
section and has commented that all entr ces and exits to the site must meet the
City's width and turning radius requirements. The City Engineer has also stated that
turn-lanes may be required to the site from the abutting roadway. The developer may
be assessed for future improvements to the abutting roadway.
Building Design. The applicant has not submitted any elevations demonstrating the
potential building design. While not required as part of the concept review, this
information was requested by the Planning Commission at their May meeting. At
that meeting, the Planning Chair requested that the applicant provide schematics
detailing the intended design for the office building. The applicant has not supplied
this information.
.
Signs. The concept plan does not include information regarding any proposed signs.
The applicant has placed nonconforming signs on the subject property, advertising
5
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
"For Lease/Build" for the Monticello Professional Center along County Road 75. A
letter dated April 23, 2007, was sent to the applicant from Wright County regarding
the nonconforming signs located on trailers and requested that the signs be removed
within IS days of receipt of the letter. As of the date of this report, the illegal signs
have not been removed from the property.
Tree Preservation. The subject site contains dense tree cover, particularly on the
north side adjacent to Interstate 94. Said tree cover consists of a number of mature
oak trees that the City would like preserved. Staff is concerned that the proposed
configuration of the buildings will inhibit the ability to preserve valuable trees. The
conservation of the existing trees is particularly important for aesthetics and to serve
as a noise buffer. A formal tree inventory shall be required as part of any application
for Development Stage PUD. As part of the PUD process, staff recommends that a
tree preservation plan also be required, maintaining a buffer along the northern
property line.
Stormwater. Two ponds are proposed throughout the development. No significant
landscaping or other improvements are proposed surrounding these ponds, and they
are therefore not expected to serve as an amenity to the development. Detailed
stormwater plans shall be submitted as part of any application for preliminary plat.
The City Engineer's comments regarding stormwater are included below.
.
Grading and Drainage. The City Engineer and WSB have reviewed the proposed
concept plan and have made the following recommendations regarding grading and
drainage:
I. A storm water management plan will be required in which storm water ponds
treat all new impervious surfaces and are connected to a controlled discharge
rate, which does not increase existing discharge rates. This plan should
incorporate connections to each pond and wetland as there is only one existing
discharge pipe.
2. The existing stormwater facilities north of CSAH 75 shall not be disturbed
during the development of the site, other than adjusting casting elevations.
The City wishes to keep the stormwater system separated from the proposed
development's system at all times.
3. A wetland delineation report will be required to be submitted and approved by
the City on the size of the existing wetland.
4. The proposed storm water management system will be required to incorporate
all City, County, and MnDOT storm water currently managed through the site.
5. A grading plan will be required to remove the existing ditch system and be
replaced with a curb and gutter storm water collection system.
6. A tree protection plan should be provided to the City.
7. A berm may be required by MNDOT to block noise from 1-94.
.
Utilities. The City Engineer and WSB have reviewed the proposed concept plan and
have made the following recommendations regarding utilities:
6
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
1. Sanitary sewer service is not currently available to this site. Existing city
service utilities are located on the south side of Wright County Highway 75
and the existing railroad. The applicant will be required to jack service lines
under the railroad and obtain th~ necessary permits from the BNSF railroad.
2. Currently the developer is prop9sing to supply water to the site via a dead-end
line by connecting to a single existing watermain line near the east side ofthe
site. We would recommend that the developer consider looping the
watermain through the site to prevent interruption of water to any of the
buildings located after the initial point of interruption. This can be
accomplished by connecting the watermain at the west end of the site to the
existing watermain on Meadow Oak Avenue.
3. Connection of service lines to the site would require a permit from Wright
County and may require jacking under the roadway.
4. Drainage and utility easements shall be required over all City-owned utilities.
5. Existing utilities such as storm sewer and fiber optic lines would need to be
protected during construction.
General Concept Plan Review Elements. The City shall review and render a
decision on the proposed general concept plan based on the following elements:
.
(a) Overall maximum PUD density range.
(b) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
(c) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(d) General location of residential and non-residential land uses with approximate
type and intensities of development.
(e) Staging and time schedule of development.
(f) Other special criteria for development.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Regarding the application for concept stage approval of the Monticello Professional
Center, the Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Motion to recommend approval pf the request for concept stage approval,
based on the findings that the proposed commercial development is consistent
with the intent and performance standards of the B-3, Regional Business
District and meets the review eltlments of a General Concept Plan.
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe request for concept stage approval, based
on the findings that the proposed commercial development does not meet the
intent and performance standards ofthe B-3, Regional Business District and
also does not meet the review elements of a General Concept Plan.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
RECOMMENDATION
Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development, staff does not recommend approval of the request as presented. The
applicant has not supplied adequate information for staff to adequately review the
proposed project. The submitted site plan is not to scale, and no dimensions have
been provided to determine setbacks, drive width, and parking stall size. The
applicant has not submitted preliminary details of schematics or preliminary
information about the quality of materials, as requested by the Planning Chair at the
May 1, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Furthermore, a significant portion of
the submittal requirements for the General Concept Stage portion of the Planned Unit
Development process (Section 20-3) has not been submitted.
Portions of the curb barrier appear to directly abut the property line, not in
conformance with the required setback. Adjusting this curb barrier to meet the 11
foot setback could result in the loss of multiple parking spaces. Staff is also
concerned with the proposed configuration ofthe buildings and the conservation of
the existing trees for both aesthetics and as a noise buffer. The applicant has also
failed to remove the non-conforming signs from the property, as was required in the
motion by the Planning Commission and was agreed upon by the applicant at the May
1,2007 Planning Commission meeting.
.
Various approvals and permits are needed from other entities, including BNSF
railroad, Wright County, and MnDOT, in order for the project to move forward. Staff
is not aware of any action taken by the applicant in regards to these approvals. As
such, staff does not recommend approval of the Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development at this time.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H;
Exhibit I:
ExhibitJ:
.
Concept Plan
Sketch Plan Submittal
Topographical Survey
Memo from Bruce Westby, City Engineer, dated May 21,2007
Memo from the City Engineer dated April 23, 2007
Memo from WSB dated April 23, 2007
Memo from WSB dated May 22, 2007
Memo from MnDOT dated May 1,2007
Memo from Wright County dated April 23"\ 2007
Memo from Wright County dated May 16th, 2007
l
tf.l .. u
11 "
tf.l <: ...l
:J:
b:
o
z
0:::
w
I-
Z
W
o
...J
<C<
~
z
9~~
-zz
:::1--
llQOO'"
.....J...J~
.. tI
...
"
..
... ...:l
~
;;
r/::l.c ...:l
/
J:
~
o
z
0::
w
I-
Z
W
o
-I
<C:ce
I..:l
~ ~
- C
CI..:lI..:l=
=zz;:)
;:)--00
OOCCIl.lt:J
1....J....J11, ,
\.)
.
~
~ a
~ ~
~ I
~ !'I
~ ~
~ ~ ~ .+"" i'
,.!, . I
" ~
~ ~
; I
lil
I.
I .
I II
;
I
I C I
d:
p
I
I
I! 1
l. I
III H
Ii;;; li: a
II I II l!l
I ~~: Ii: ! I;
III -''II.e
ill 1: I
Iii
I
i
,
Ii
j'
~'
il
,
~il
U.
Ul
ill
hl.
'I"
. II
ll~
In:
J~d
.,"
l.lI
I!H
~iu
I"
1:<<
,HI
I,
l,
..
. -
II i
II !~
II I!
II !I
il Ii
!
I
i
I
I
.
i
I
.
I
d
I.
.
C
. .
l
.
~
;.1
~ ii~
~m
. 'II
~ . i
~ ~ I
76
.
.
.
~
~ B
is ~
~ ~
~ ..
'~ ~
~ i ~ .+. i'
I .' "- I a
~ ~ '
~ ~
I I
!i!
I
I
II i
!; ! I
ii, ; i
III Ii III
III i " l!l
.0.1, I
II; i.~
IIi I
",
."
i
.,.'"
~~
/~l
~
,
"
J
.
IJ.
'j"
.n
1111
In:
,:ed
If,'
I'!!
1m
~l"
I"
;:0
.1
I
I
.
I
il
.;!ii
11
d
,I
~il
U.
Ii!
Ii
li
p
J
!' i
II !
Ii !'
II ~
!I ~
il ti
!I
.
I
i
i
I
i
,
i
I
,
I
&"
I"
!.
I .
pl
I
I
; II
d:
I
I'
.
~
~ e
is ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ..
I
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ I
~
IJ.
'I"
'II
llij
b~
I~d
'I',!
I'"
1m
~jll
I"
,:11
,Ill
I
I
!~ ;
1, I
. II ! I
-+ I, h.'!
. ~"i Wlta
. I' !Iii i ! n
~u. :1: I
", i"
ili I
II;
I
.
'"
,~,.
/~
.
I
I
.
,I
-'
.1
~I
n
I',
~i.
II!
II
J
j!i i
II I
!I 'l
II !I
!I !I
~ Ii
I
i
i
I
!
.
i
I
.
I
%
/
/
/
/
/
"
~ I
I'
01
,-
I
j.
I,
I '
! II
,
!
III
d;
!
,J,. t
I'
~!
~i !
~.
.! ~I
~i . ~
in~
I~ ;l~
.
tD
May 21,2007
MONTICELLO
Ms Kimberly Holien
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway
Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Re: Monticello Professional Center
Concept Stage PUD Application Review Comments
City Planning Project No. 2006-028
Dear Ms Holien:
.
On April 30, 2007 the City of Monticello received revised application materials for a Conditional
Use Permit for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for the Monticello Professional Center.
Upon receiving the revised application materials the Engineering and Public Works Departments
reviewed the materials and respectfully offer the following comments:
I. Currently the developer is proposing to supply water to the site via a dead-end line by
connecting to a single existing watermain line near the east side of the site. We would
recommend that the developer consider looping the watermain through the site to prevent
interruption of water to any ofthe buildings located after the initial point of interruption.
This can be accomplished by connecting the watermain at the west end of the site to the
existing watermain on Meadow Oak Avenue.
2. Turn-lanes may be required to the site from the abutting roadway.
3. The developer may be assessed for future improvements to the abutting roadway.
Please be advised that these comments are supplemental to the comments previously submitted
to you on April 23, 2007. In addition, the City's Engineering Consultant, WSB and Associates,
may provide comments under separate cover. Please call me at 763-271-3236 should you have
any questions regarding any of the comments above.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
.
~U/A~
Bruce Westby, P .E.
City Engineer
Monticello City Hall. 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-883l' (763) 295-2711 . Fax (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362' (763) 295-3170' Fax (763) 271-3272
.
.
.
Kimberly Holien
May 21,2007
Page 2 of2
cc: Jeff 0 'Neill, City Administrator
John Simola, Public Works Director
Angela Schumann, Community Development Coordinator
Shibani Bisson, WSB and Associates, Inc.
Phillip Elkin, WSB and Associates, Inc.
7E-
.
{I I .' 1
f ,i ;,
.I, j. .
April 23, 2007
i\~{X'\K.'I
{t'ii
MONTICELLO
Ms Kimberly Holien
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway
Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Re: Monticello Professional Center
Comments on Concept Stage PUD Application
City Planning Project No. 2006-028
Dear Ms Holien:
.
On April 3, 2007 the City of Monticello received an application for Conditional Use Permit for
Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for the Monticello Professional Center. Upon
receiving the application materials the Engineering and Public Works Departments reviewed
them and respectfully offer the following comments:
1. As previously noted in a letter from WSB and Associates to Mr. Schneider dated August
10, 2006, sanitary sewer and watermain services are not currently available on his site and
as such must be extended to his site at a significant cost to him. In addition, this letter
noted that a permit will be required from BNSF railroad to jack a sanitary sewer line
under their right.of-way. The City is not aware of any action taken by Mr. Schneider to
date in regards to either of these items, and as such we would like to respectfully remind
him that his project's schedule could depend on the completion of these items.
2. As previously noted in a letter from the City to Mr. Schneider dated April 4, 2007, his
current site plan shows development on property that is currently owned by the State of
Minnesota. As such these comments do not address any development on State-owned
property.
3. The existing stonnwater utilities north ofCSAH 75 shall not be disturbed during the
development of the site, other then adjusting casting elevations. The City wishes to keep
our stormwater system separate from the proposed developments system at all times.
4. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all City-owned utilities.
S. The City would like Mr. Schneider to be made aware that the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/D01) is currently proposing to replace the 1-94 twin bridges over
CSAH 7S in a project to be let next year (2008). During MnlDOT's bridge replacement
project the existing CSAH 75 access ramps to and from 1-94 will be open to traffic which
may interfere with the construction and schedule 0 f the developer's project. We therefore
recommend that Mr. Schneider contact MnlDOT to discuss the schedule of their project
prior to finalizing his plans.
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I. Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax (763) 295-4404
Office ofPlIblic Works, 909 GolfColll'Se Rd., Monticello, MN 55362. (763) 295-3170. Fax (763) 271-3272
.
.
.
Kimberly Holien
April 23, 2007
Page 2 of2
Additional comments from the City's Engineering Consultant, WSB and Associates, will be
provided under separate cover. Please call me at 763-271-3236 should you have any questions
regarding any of the comments above.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
~~,~~
Bruce Westby, P.E.
City Engineer
cc: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
Johu Simola, Public Works Director
Angela Schumann, Community Development Coordinator
Shibani Bisson, WSB and Associates, Inc.
Phillip Elkin, WSB and Associates, Inc.
.
.
.
....
WSB
7F
Infrastructure _ Engineering. Planning. Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
To': 763 541-4300
Fax: 763541.1700
& Associates, Inc.
April 23, 2007
Ms. Kimberly Holien
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway
Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55442
Re: Monticello Professional Center
Concept Plan Review Comments
City of Monticello Planning Project No. 2006-028
WSB Project No. 1627-60
Dear Ms. Holien:
We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the above-referenced project dated April 2, 2007 and
offer the following comments:
STREETS
I. The proposed development uses land designated as the City of Monticello, Wright County
and MnDOT right-of-way. The applicant will need to abandon existing and dedicate new
right-of-way to complete the project.
2. All entrances and exits to the site must meet the City of Monticello width and turning radius
requirements.
3. Revise the entrance configuration to the easterly most parking lot to distinguish it from the
existing street section.
UTILITIES
1.
Sanitary sewer service is not currently available to this site. Existing city service utilities are
located on the south side of Wright County Highway 75 and the existing railroad. The
applicant would be required to jack service lines under the railroad along with obtaining the
necessary permits from the BNSF railroad.
A water service line is also not available at this site and would require a connection similar to
the sanitary sewer. Existing utilities such as storm sewer and fiber optic lines would need to
be protected during construction.
Connection of service lines to the site would require a permit from Wright County and may
require jacking under the roadway.
2.
3.
GRADING. DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
I. A storm water management plan will be required in which storm water ponds treat all new
impervious surfaces and are connected to a controlled discharge rate, which does not increase
C:'DoC",""IIIS<lNJ &tri~'<l"!I"Ia.s<;hwna""Ll\loc,,1 SeuillgslTelflPO'!lry llf1N>"" Flk,IOlJ(6IN.TR-K HlJi",,,-o.I2JG7-x;repli2,,/&view,doc
Ms. Kimberly Holien
April 23, 2007
. Page 2
existing discharge rates. This plan should incorporate connections to each pond and wetland
as there is only one existing discharge pipe.
2. A wetland delineation report will be need to be submitted and approved by the City on the
size of the existing wetland.
3. The proposed storm water management system will be required to incorporate all City,
County and MnDOT storm water currently managed through the site.
4. The site plan proposes a pond on property currently owned by MnDOr. The applicant must
first obtain the rights to pond on this site before it can be considered part of the site's storm
water management facility.
5. A grading plan will need to remove the existing ditch system and replace it with a curb and
gutter storm water collection system.
6. The applicant should provide the City with a tree protection plan.
7. A berm may be required by MNDOT to block noise from 194.
Please contact me at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
.
Phillip A. Elkin, PE
Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello
Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc.
.
C: ;Dr>c.......1IU und s,.'lingS'a1lgeia.sc!>umann. CflLor:~{ Smu'If"T~mparary {Jlb>mI!' FiI~{o;OLKfi8lLTll-K Holil':1t-().j2301.,iteplanJ&view.doc
.
...
WSB
7Gj
&; Associate;$,. fnc.
Infrastructure. Engineering. Planning. Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763541-4600
Fax: 763541.1700
May 22, 2007
Ms. Kimberly Holien
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway
Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55442
Re: Moon Motorsports
Amendment to CUP Plan Review Comments
City of Monticello Planning Project No. 2004-66
WSB Project No. 1488-28
Dear Ms. Holien:
.
We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the above-referenced project dated April 17, 2007 and
offer the following comments:
Plan Sheet C 1.1
I. It is difficult to differentiate the concrete from the gravel surface due to the similar shading
used on the plan set. The plans should be revised so that there is a distinct difference
between these markings.
2. The gravel surface used for the outdoor storage should be 100% crushed material to avoid
dust problems.
3. The applicant should include the distance between the proposed driveway entrance and the
nearest intersection (90th Street).
Plan Sheet C 1.2
1. The driveway entrance will need to use B6l8 curb and gutter to match the Chelsea Road curb
section.
2. The applicant should submit a drainage map detailing the drainage areas to each catch basin
and how much runoff is directed off-site. The applicant should coordinate drainage to the
west with the adjacent property owner.
Plan Sheet C 1.3
I. Use DIP bends for watermain, not deflections, as the lines need to be locatable vertically.
2. A minimum 18-inch separation will be required between utilities in all locations where lines
cross.
C:'Dox._=i11Id s..'IiIIgs",*I<U('/nmtamI.Cl1lQroISiluillpITempo"'ry 11lM17Ier FileslOI.X6/IILTR-K Ho/ft:"..Oj1207.silep/4~w.dtx
Ms. Kimberly Holien
April 23, 2007
. Page 2
Plan Sheet A 1.2
I. The landscaping plan indicates that trees will be planted in an area along the west property
line that had previously been identified as preserved in the grading plan. Please clarify the
activity in this area.
Please contact me at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Phillip A. Elkin, PE
Project Manager
Enclosure
.
cc:
Bruce Westby, City of Monticello
Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc.
.
C:ilklc"""'lUJ"lItldSeIQngs'oIlf~la_scltumarl1a__"'{I.L1ruI Seltings\T~fft{1OIUry [nternet FiI'fIOUC68'LTR-/C fhIklt-ll5nQ7-'il/ep/o~,._Joc
May 1 2007 12 30PM
Distr'ct 3A Blxter
No. 1642 P 2
"("'......101:,.. Minnesota Department of Transportation
; ~
. ~ District 3
~OFT1t~....l 7694 Industrial Park Road
Baxter, MN 56425-8096
May I, 2007
70
Tel: 218/828-5700
Fax: 218/828-5814
Toll Free: 118001657.3971
Mr. Gary Anderson
Chief Zoning Official
505 Walnut St., Suite I
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: CS 8605 (TH 25)
CUP for Commercial PUD - Schneider
City of Monticello
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have received a hearing notice regarding a CUP for a conunercial pun
(Schneider).
We offer the following conunents .
.
1. There can be not net increase in stormwater from the development to the 1-94
RfW. A drainage plan should be provided to our office once it becomes
available.
2. A permit is required to perform work within the R1W, construct any entrances
or change in use of an entrance. Contact Mark Renn at our St. Cloud office at
(320) 223-6522 for more information.
If you have any questions regarding our review and conunents, please call me at (218)
828-5780. In the future, we will need up to 30 days for review of any plat, per M.S.
Statute 505.03. Preliminary plats should be sent to Mn/DOT Baxter, Planning, 7694
Industrial Park Road, Baxter, MN 56425. Thanks.
Sincerely,
'1/IllvMt1."'b~
Mary Safgren
Senior Planner
Enclosure: Brochure
.
cc:
Bob Nibbe - MniDOT Baxter
Mark Renn - MniDOT Baxter
An equal opportunity employer
vt-1TY OJ::.
. ,P ~
v ~
i .~~ ~
\- g
"z, 4Y
7ss6
Office of
PLANNING AND ZONING
COPY,T
WRIGHT COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
10 Second Street NW, Rm 140, Buffalo, Iv[N 55313-1185
(763) 682-7338
Fax # (763) 682-
DE~~rl:ED
Monday, April 23, 2007
Mike Schafer of 251 Partnership LLP
449 139'h Ave.
Foley, MN 56329
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Re: Signs advertising future development
To Whom It May Concern:
It has recently come to our attention that there are a number of signs on trailers advertising For
Lease/Build to suit for Monticello Professional Center on properties along County Road 75, Section 18,
Monticello Township, PID #'s 213-000-183101 and 213-000-184203,
.
Even though it appears the signs are temporary, it is not a permitted use under the current sign ordinance.
At this time, the properties do not have a permit for the signs or a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed
businesses. We request that the signs be removed within 15 days of receipt of this letter.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, Feel free to give me a call with any questions at 763-682-
7337.
Cc: Monticello Township
City Of Monticello
.
Printed on recycled paper.
Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action employer
.
.
.
iJ
Office of
PLANNING AND ZONING
I
WRiGHT COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
10 Second Street lVW, Rm 140, Buffalo, MN 55313-1185
(763) 682-7338
Fax # (763) 682-7872
7856
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Mike Schneider of 251 Partnership LLP
449 139th Ave.
Foley, MN 56329
Re: Signs advertising future development
Dear Mr. Schneider:
Per the letter sent to you on April 23, 2007 the signs were to be removed by May 14, 2207. A site
inspection was conducted on May 16, 2007 and the signs were still located on properties along County
Road 75, Section 18, Monticello Township, PlD #'s 213-000-183101 and 213-000-184203.
Since you failed to comply with our previous request this matter will be forwarded to the County Attorney
for legal action on May 21, 2007 if the signs are not t,*en down by that date.
If you have any questions please contact our office at 763-682-7337.
Sincerely,
ta
Assistant Planner
Stacy,Aro(aJ.co. wright.mn. us
Cc: Monticello Township
City Of Monticello
Tom Zins- County Attorney
Printed on recycled paper.
Equal Opportunity / Affirmdtive Action Employer
'"
v
~
:E
I III
I :E:
'V
I '"
"
z
-
c.....
.....0
-0
::)N
m ..
C.....
.z ~
CCcc
z::)
CCa::
.....m
0..11I
IIILL.
I-
-
'"
~
CC
Z
-
:E
-
.....
III
-
z
CC
.....
0..
III
I-
-
'"
\j
\j z
z C
- ...I
C\jl-'_
~zz::)
::)--IlOVI
IlOCgww
w~-uu
u~~~<C
VI
W
U
<(
c..
VI
\j
Z
-
~I~ :
~~~
~CI) .. ...
//,,;
/'<
, '
, ,
/, //
/.,."
, , c
if
// '"
,
,
~
o
z
,
,
',//
!
0::
w
t-
Z
W
o
..J
<(~
Zo
QfB
f
i'i.-
~
z
i5~~
:::!zz
ii:i5i5:n
LL1=:::!U
U::l::l<
Li:ClClCICIQ..
Ll-L.l.lLLlVII
O!:1!::!~
~ .. "- ....
'"
w
w
ex:
...
'"
:>
o
~
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
8. Consideration of a request for Amendment to a Planned Unit Development for
expansion of Open and Outdoor StoJral!e. Applicant: Sunnv Fresh Foods. Inc.
(NAC)
BACKGROUND
Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an expansion
of Open and Outdoor Storage on the Sunny Fresh Foods property at 206 West 4th
Street. The applicant is proposing outdoor storage of eight liquid process silos. The
site is zoned CCD, Central Community District.
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is guided for commercial land uses.
Zoning. The subject site is zoned CCD, Central Community District. The purpose of
the CCD is to implement the plans and policies of the Monticello Downtown
Revitalization Plan, as that Plan is designed to provide for the establishment and
continuation of a traditional downtown area in Monticello's primary commercial
core.
ANALYSIS
.
The subject use is a legal non-conforming industrial use in the CCD that has been
grandfathered in. Sunny Fresh is proposing to construct eight 43 '8" liquid process
silos in the place of eight liquid process tanks. Five of the tanks will be installed on
the north east side of the plant and will be completely enclosed with a ground level
screen wall to be approximately 15' in height. The other three silos will be installed
in an open atrium in south central portion of the plants. The eight silos will contain a
liquid egg product. The applicant is not proposing to increase the impervious surface
of the site with the outdoor storage facilities.
Signage. No changes to signage are proposed for the conditional use permit.
Conditional Use Permit. Open and outdoor storage is allowed as an accessory use
in the CCD District by Conditional Use Permit, provided that:
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or
if abutting a residential district in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2G of
this ordinance.
Comment: The site does not border any residentially zoned properties.
.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right of way in compliance
with Chapter 3 Section 2G of this ordinance.
Comment: Five of the eight silos will be screened by a fifteen foot wall at ground
level. This screening will not screen the silos from adjacent properties. The
.
remaining three will be enclosed and screened by the existing building. Due to the
height of the silos, they will be visible. However. staffbelieves that any attempt to
screen the silos would be more obtrusive than the silos themselves. Due to the
location to the interior, the visual effects of the silos will lessen as one nears the
property.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
Comment: The silos will be set on concrete pads.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall
be in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2H of this ordinance
Comment: Safety lighting will be installed to the catwalks for emergency nighttime
access and is intended to meeting city lighting standards
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
.
Future Expansion. As stated above, the applicant is a legal non-conforming
industrial use that has been grandfathered in to the CCD, which is the City's civic
core. The Comprehensive Plan Task Force has discussed the CCD District, and
determined that the policies of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan are still valid for this
area. In regard to this area, the Comprehensive Plan states that "investment in the
traditional downtown should focus on facilitating a transition to a recreation center
and entertainment based center." The subject application illustrates that the applicant
is continuing to expand in their existing site. In that regard, staff encourages the
applicant to work with the City in addressing any future expansion of this industrial
use in the CCD.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development for expansion of Open and Outdoor Storage, based on a finding that
the proposed expansion is consistent with the original terms of the Planned Unit
Development for Sunny Fresh Foods, subject to conditions list in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development for expansion of Open and Outdoor Storage, based on a finding that
the proposed expansion is not consistent with the original terms of the Planned
Unit Development for Sunny Fresh Foods and is not an appropriate expansion
within the CCD.
.
3. Motion of other.
2
.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval ofthe request for Outdoor Storage eight liquid process
silos, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. While the silos will be
approximately ten feet taller than the existing silos they shall not adversely affect the
neighboring properties due to the silos being painted a discreet white. Lighting
proposed on the silos is for safety proposes only and shall be required to meet City
standards. DA T has reviewed the project and also recommends approval of the
Sunny Fresh CUP with the condition that staff discuss future expansion plans in the
downtown area with the applicant.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit Z:
Site Location Map
Project Narrative
Site Plan
Elevation from south looking north
Elevation from east looking west
Photo of existing silos from east looking west
Photo of silos existing location and proposed new silos
Conditions of approval
Exhibit Z
Conditions of Approval
Sunny Fresh Foods
1. The applicant shall veritY the actual height of the proposed silos.
2. All lighting proposed for the site shall be in compliance with the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance.
.
3
Sf?
I
AciiiHr__
5-2-07
Sunny Fresh Foods Inc.
206 West 4th Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Silo Install Narrative Letter
Dear Review Committee's
..
We propose to replace 8 liquid process tanks with 8 liquid process silos located and
attached to the Sunny Fresh Foods, Monticello plant campus. The purpose for this addition is
replacement of current older, smaller capacity tanks.
We propose to installS of these tanks on the north east side of our plant June 26 and 27th.
Our plan is to totally enclose the north silo area with ground level screen wall to a height of
approximately 15'. The remaining 3 silos will be installed in an open atrium area in the south
center of the plant in early August. All silos will be installed and set on concrete pads directly
outside the plant with attached alcoves permitting access to the silo ports from inside the plant.
The silos will be 43' 8" from pad to center top. Our current taller silos are 33' 8," of which we
have 3(...see photos or drawings). The proposed silos and catwalks will be smooth sided and
white painted. Any exposed piping will be insulated and white vinyl coated similar to the
existing silos in appearance. Catwalks will be attached to the tops to connect the silos together to
permit maintenance access. We propose to install safety lighting to the catwalks for emergency
nighttime access only. We intend this lighting to meet city lighting standards. During this project
we have no intentions of making any landscaping or siguage changes.
We recognize the city requirements for screening however for this project we request an
exception to omit screening. These silos are desigued to be smooth, clean lined vessels that
would not benefit astatic ally from a bigger more intrusive wall or box. In addition, the structural
additions that would need to be engineered to support the weight of the screening, wind sheering
and additional snow loading would be extensive and be more obtrusive to the skyline.
Respectfully submitted by,
Steve Grinnell
Process Engineer I Project Manager
Sunny Fresh Foods Inc., Monticello
.
,
..
le
f' ,~~~~-,~
, .
1
I
:1
,I
II
.~
,..,
J
[I
,
I
1~J1:f~'""~.'~'_.'~"
.~
lalOJ
-,
1
!
,
I' --,
I i'"
._,-j
':]u.-;'7
l
(
L_
"==,-=
I
'""
00 ~
"tl Z
'" Z
!il -<
o ..,
fo'l ill
" 12
Z ..,
~ 8
'" '"
i" .
" -
'" Z
r>
~Yl
I
I
I
I
I JlUllilllIll!1 "'
o
I,
'I
Ii
",
II
I
06
[]
,
,,-
I!
\
i:
II
-j
I;
H
I
517
.. +-
.- +-z:
0 rrl
0 +-:;;::
^ (j)
z: .-
GJ 0
z: (j)
0 -!>-
:;0 ~
-j -
::r: I
ex;
+-
+-
+-
+-
.
G
~
,
..
.
"
I
I
rrl
)>
Vl
--1
H
I
.1
I:
.'
n
I
se
B
B
Hi
.
Hi!
,-
o
o
^
Z
GJ
~
rrl
Vl
--1
Vl
,-
o
Vl
~
~
31'-<).
~!'-a'
,
SF=
..
Current 4-10-07
Existing Silos.
(East looking West on the North end of the plant.)
~.
g~
,
Ie
~~~W~~.l'-,~~tt~!#r".
3 Proposed
New
Silos (along side existing)
South Side Proposed Layout
(South looking North)
.
,
.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPANSION OF
OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE. APPLICANT: SUNNY FRESH FOODS
IDC RECOMMENDATION OF JUNE 5, 2007
At the IDC meeting of June 5, 2007, the members discussed the Planning Commission agenda item
relating to the request by the applicant, Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. Don Roberts, Sunny Fresh Foods,
informed the members that Sunny Fresh had followed the application and review process with city staff
and the Design Advisory Team, stating the good news was a sign-off and recommendation for approval
by staff. The IDC concurred with the staff recommendation and unanimously passed a motion
recommending the Planning Commission approve the replacement and/or addition of eight silos for
Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. located within the CCD, Central Community District.
-
.
1.,-
I \
DEMONSTRATION OF SUPPORT
We, as the Tenants of St. Benedict's Senior Community
request that a sign be located at the end of our
driveway entrance off of 7th Street between us and
Home Depot.
We believe a variance for the sign height and size is
important to identify where we live to our guests and
visitors. Since we now live next to a mall environment,
it is essential that our sign is large enough to clearly
mark where we live.
I
This sign would prevent sellli trucks from accidentally
entering our home driveway and damaging our lawn
and landscape.
lJjrl/td (! ~~
~II~
~ 4LV~d
rr;~.Cf~ CP-J1J0
11' ~;rwz~~~ ~
IJ ~.
IL~~
Jh . (J. fdff
~~
~tj(.~. J~i~
p:J1Y ~ ~
~vJ
'}7~~ d. r(~
a~ ~JA~
1-JL~ 1~
~tL- -j~
0'(tf-L<'l0 ~
Jt;"'j :;( cf'" ~ - p/', \
~c.
@~(lt 1
J3~ cI- e~ r;:itA-/1J~
)t~~ifFk.
~K~
~~
~
1:u.zi. ~ \
. .
-." .
, r I
~ (j~ r;;omtratirt::::;," S,,(
1<J~ r A1~
Page 2
.~?..~V"
)!{pV ~."( Du-i; 1'\
O~j}~
., tV ~chd.~
~#~
a~-z)~
~ ~"Lt:'
4~u~
d~w~
j()~d~~
84k&~
'7~ -.N~
Ie
,
te
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/07
9. Consideration of a request for Simple Subdivision. Rezoninl!: from B-4 (Rel!:ional
Business) to PS (Public/Semi-Public). Amendment to Planned Unit Development. and
Variance to sil!:nal!:e heil!:ht and area requirements. Applicant: St. Benedict's Senior
Care Facilitv/CentraCare. St. Henry's Catholic Church and Home Depot. Inc. (NAC).
BACKGROUND
The St. Benedict's Senior Community has submitted an application for an off-premise
sign to be located at the northeast comer of the intersection of7'h Street and the St.
Benedict's Senior Community driveway. The subject site is located at 1301 7th Street.
The underlying zoning of the St. Benedict's property is PZM, Performance Mixed Use.
The site of the proposed sign is zoned B-4, Regional Business and the neighboring St.
Henry's property is zoned PS, Public/Semi-Public. A previous sign identifying St.
Benedict's was displaced with the re-alignment of 7'h Street. The proposed sign location
is on the Home Depot property, on the east side of the St. Benedict's driveway. Required
approvals to accommodate the sign include the following:
I. Simple subdivision to separate the subject site from the Home Depot property.
2. An amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development to add
the property to the existing St. Henry's/St. Benedict's PUD.
3. Rezoning of the parcel from B-4, Regional Business to PS, Public/Semi-Public.
4. A variance for the area of the sign.
5. A variance for the required sign setback.
All parties must sign the applications for each request in order for any approval to be
valid.
Comvrehensive Plan: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
performance zoning of mixed uses.
Zoninf!: The subject site is zoned PZM, Performance Zoned Mixed Use District, which
allows for development flexibility and special design control within sensitive areas of the
city due to environmental or physical limitations.
CUP/PUD: A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance standards
with the understanding that the development will be held to higher standards of site and
building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the applicant's responsibility to
design the development with significant benefits and communicate those benefits to the
City for allowing a CUP/PUD.
ANALYSIS
St. Benedict's Senior Community is requesting a sign to be located on the east side of
their driveway, on the Home Depot property. The subject site currently owned by Home
Depot is 623 square feet in area and is platted as Lot 1, Block 2 of Union Crossings. The
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
e
applicant has stated that this parcel may be as large as 767 square feet in area, but the 623
square foot parcel is the most likely alternative. St. Henry's Catholic Church owns the
land on the west side of the driveway. A large drainage pond exists on the church
property, next to the driveway. A narrative submitted by the applicant states the subject
site on the east side of the driveway was chosen due to placement space and safety issues.
The St. Benedict's Senior Community is currently part of a Planned Unit Development
with St. Henry's Catholic Church. The existing St. Benedict's Senior Community
driveway is located partially on the St. Henry's property, and partially on property owned
by Home Depot. The applicant has an easement from St. Henry's Catholic Church
accordingly. However, no such easement is in place for the Home Depot property. The
parcel of land proposed to be subdivided from the Home Depot property and added to the
St. Henry's/St. Benedict's PUD would place the entire driveway on the St. Henry's
property. A Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the issue of sign placement has
been prepared for all required approvals, and has been attached for reference.
Sign. The applicant is proposing an internally lit sign identifYing the entrance to the St.
Benedict's site. Said sign is blue and white in color, and directs guests to the various
services on the St. Benedict's property. The proposed sign is a monument sign 14 feet in
height with a face area of 98 square feet.
Ie
Area and height regulations for freestanding signs are determined based on the speed
limit and road classification of the road on which the building is located. The subject site
is located on 7th Street, a collector street with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. As such,
the applicant is entitled to a sign no greater than 50 square feet in area and 20 feet in
height. The proposed sign is nearly twice the allowed area for the site. As such, a
variance for the size of the sign is being requested as part of the application.
Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The neighboring St. Henry's site is zoned PS,
Public/Semi-Public. The subject site is to be added to the St. Henry's parcel, and
therefore must be rezoned to PS. Signs in any district are required to meet a setback
equal to one half of the required setback for the district. As such, the required setbacks
for the proposed sign in the PS District, as well as what is proposed, are as follows:
Setbacks
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Required
Proposed
20 feet
5 feet
15 feet
20 feet
3 feet
20 feet
The proposed sign is located three feet from the eastern boundary ofthe parcel proposed
to be subdivided from the Home Depot property. A variance is therefore necessary for
the applicant to encroach into the required side yard setback.
.
Simple Subdivision. A person may request an administrative subdivision of property
described by metes and bounds under the following conditions:
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
e
a. The purpose ofthe subdivision is to lcombine two or more parcels of record to
create a parcel conforming to the requirements of the applicable zoning district.
b. The purpose of the subdivision is to divide one previously platted parcel into no
more than two buildable parcels, both of which will be in full conformance with
all applicable zoning regulations, and for which no public right of way,
easements, or other drainage concerns are evident to the Zoning Administrator.
The applicant is working with Home Depot to subdivide a 623 square foot parcel ofland
from Lot 1, Block 2 of Union Crossings, property owned by Home Depot. That parcel
will then be combined with the St. Henry's property. Both actions may be processed as a
simple subdivision. A metes and bounds legal description of the property will be
prepared by the City and provided to Home Depot for review.
The applicant has indicated that, for tax purposes, the requested subdivision will not be
recorded until October of2007. Recording of this subdivision with the Wright County
Recorder's office by that date shall be required as a condition of approval.
Ie
PUD Amendment. Adding the 623 square foot sign parcel to the existing St. Henry's
property requires an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development for the PUD previously approved for St. Henry's/St. Benedict's.
Amending the PUD will accommodate the addition of the land, as well as the addition of
the proposed sign. The sign is generally consistent with the existing PUD.
Rezone. The neighboring St. Henry's site is zoned PS, Public/Semi-Public. The subject
site is to be added to the St. Henry's parcel, as the 623 square foot is contiguous with the
St. Henry's property, but not the St. Benedict's property. Therefore, the subject parcel
must be rezoned to PS to be consistent with the existing zoning of the St. Henry's
property.
The proposed land use designation ofPS, Public/Semi-Public is a less intense designation
than the existing 8-4 zoning. The proposed rezoning will affect a very small area, and is
not expected to have a negative impact on surrounding properties. The change from a B-
4 land use designation to a PS land use designation will simply extend the existing PS
zoning and St. Henry's property further east, maintaining a contiguous PS designation.
As such, the requested rezoning may be appropriate for the site.
.
Variance. Variance requests are considered where it is alleged by the applicant that a
non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A
hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of
property or lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by
reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel ofland or lot,
the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties
when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the
district in which said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon the
owner of such lot or parcel that the owner of another lot or parcel within the same district
3
e
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
would not have ifhe were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the
applicant.
In this case, a hardship was created for the applicant with the realignment of 7th Street.
As part of this project, the St. Benedict's driveway was extended and the existing sign
was displaced. St. Benedict's does not have frontage on 7th Street, and an easement is in
place to accommodate the driveway. As such, an on-premise sign would not be visible
from th Street. The applicant is requesting the approvals detailed above to accommodate
a sign near the entrance to the site, on the existing Home Depot property. As such, a
variance to the side yard setback requirement may be appropriate.
However, staff does not recommend a variance for the size of the sign. The proposed
sign is nearly double the maximum allowed for the site. Staff recommends that the
applicant reduce the size of the sign to not exceed the 50 square foot maximum allowed
for the site.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Action 1
Regarding the request for a Simple Subdivision, Rezoning, and Amended Conditional
Use Permit for Planned Unit Development to accommodate an identification sign for St.
Benedict's Senior Community, the City has the following options:
I. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a Simple Subdivision,
Rezoning, and Amended Planned Unit Development, based on a finding that the
proposed use is consistent with the intent of the PS District and the existing PUD.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD and CUP, based on a
finding that the proj ect fails to demonstrate tangible amenity-based or other
benefits that justify the flexibility granted by the PUD zoning regulations and is
not consistent with the intent of the PS District.
Action 2
Regarding the request for a variance for the side yard setback to accommodate the
proposed sign, the City has the following options:
I. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a variance from the side yard
setback requirement, based on a finding that an undue hardship exists.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the request for a variance from the side yard
setback requirement, based on a finding that no hardship exists and the applicant
has reasonable use of the property.
.
Action 3
Regarding the request for a variance to allow for a sign in excess of 50 square feet, the
City has the following options:
4
I
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a variance to allow a sign in
excess of 50 square feet, based on a finding that an undue hardship exists.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the request for a variance to allow a sign in
excess of 50 square feet, based on a finding that no hardship exists and the
applicant has reasonable use ofthe property.
RECOMMENDATION
Regarding the items requested above, staff recommends approval of the rezoning, simple
subdivision, and Amended PUD, subject to the condition outlined in Exhibit Z. Staff also
recommends approval of the variance to the side yard setback requirement. The
previously existing identification sign for the St. Benedict's Senior Community was
displaced due to the realignment of 7th Street. The approvals listed above are all
necessary to accommodate a new identification sign on the east side of the St. Benedict's
driveway, on property currently owned b Home Depot. The requested action will allow
the applicant to construct an identificatio sign and will allow the St. Benedict's
driveway to be located entirely on propert in the St. Henry's/St. Benedict's POO, as
opposed to crossing onto Home Depot pr perty. It is critical to note that all parties must
sign each application as appropriate in or er for the process to move forward.
Staff does not recommend approval of the variance for the area ofthe sign as presented.
The proposed sign is nearly twice the area allowed for the site. The applicant will have
reasonable use of the property with a sign that does not exceed 50 square feet. As such,
staff finds that no hardship exists for the area of the sign.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit Z:
Site Location Map
Applicant Narrative
Parcel Sketch
Proposed Sign Illustration
Memorandum of Understanding
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit Z
Conditions of Approval
1. All involved parties and property owners sign the appropriate required applications.
2. The requested simple subdivision shall be recorded with the Wright County Recorder's
Office in October 2007.
5
.
.
.
+ St. Benedicts Senior Community
CENTRACARE Health System
9'B
1810 Minnesotd Boulevard SE I St. Cloud, MN 56304-24'16
OlD) 252~OOl 0 phone I (320) 654~2351 fax
Executive Office
Narrative Description of Sign Request
St. Benedict's Senior Community in Monticello is requesting that a sign be
located at the end of its driveway entrance off of 7th Street per the attached specifications.
The driveway into St. Benedict's Senior Community was extended to accommodate the
mall addition and community growth.
The proposed sign is consistent in appearance with all CentraCare signage. Sign
lettering and size was determined for the readability of the senior population. St.
Benedict's Senior Community is located behind the Church of St. Henry and currently
difficult to locate with the addition of Home Depot and the extended driveway. A sign
that is both lighted and visible is necessary to give direction into St. Benedict's Senior
Community for potential tenants and visitors.
Due to the extension of the driveway to accommodate the mall development, St.
Benedict's Senior Community is requesting the approval of the proposed sign to restore
its customer friendly and easily approachable entrance. The size of the proposed sign is
essential to alert customers to the location of St. Benedict's Senior Community given the
extended length of the drive and its need to be visually noticed among the surroundings
and activity of a mall. Thank you for consideration of our request.
St. Benedict's Senior Community operates under the auspices of the local Catholic Church of St. Cloud.
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
CONsrrRUC~ED CI1Y OF
MONTICELLO ,SANITARY AND
WATERty1AIN iTHUNK LINES
,
I
\
\
CONSTRUCTli:D ST~ BENEDICT'S
SENIOR COM{v1UNIT'( DRIVEWAY
\
\ /~\
\f'....... I;'
,I \~
~\ \!t
.' '~
., ,
.' ,
,;\ \tt
to\ 1\
., ,
.'
.,
.,
.'
.,
.,
.'
.,
.,
t;\
.,
.,
.-
.'
.'
.,
.'
.,
BACK OF '\\
CURB
.
\
\
\
\
\
.
\
\
\
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
\
\
\~t
\~~
\tt
\~t
'\
I
\~, I
\,
\\ 13.0"~ ~
\'40 CURB'~
TO', EXISTING'\
f1jOPERlY \',
. "
PROPOSED SUBDIVIDED \\ \~
PROPER1Y AREA ., '\
623 SF
PROPOSED ST. BENEDICT'S
SENIOR COMMUNI1Y SIGN
/'
Project Name/Location:
Union Crossings
Monticello, Mlnne.ote
Date:
.
6/14/07
^
e
~
~
<
~
-
\
I
I
\
\
\
EXISTI
INAG
EA
ED
TI L11Y
^
------ -----.
----..--
----.
_..---
.....iAST_7 H SiRE~m____.
..' '';';';';';';';';';';';'; .;.;. ..;.;.;.;.;.;:-.;::..........
y~'
},
1-.50'
1 1
I S_Tode~arcel Sketch
Sheet:
I
I
I
'-
~e3
.. I, I,
CIl
-
CIl C Cl
CI:l CI:l I:
c.:l E .;: Cl
CI:l .;: - CI:l .- I: ..,
- - ... Cl.... - .;: -
- CI:l ell ell - ... '"
c en c. I: ::l ::; c.:l
CI:l .., CI
c::c .- E 'C "'"
c.:l - > c.:l .., -
CIl ... .., - C>
C CI:l CI Q.) .: CI:l '" E
3: ::l .=<;:; .= '(ii ..,
c:l C 1-= I- '" :E
{: CI:l c:c
en
~ ~
'"
-!r
s
~~
_ u
III C.'2
~o
._ E2
"E ~
., 0 III
Eu 6
~,~. ~
~l~,m -
...:
Gl
.5
i:s
~~
~ 't:
~~
)(Gl
. .Q
"'to
....-
~,l!J
,I:: I::
ol:Gl
.!!,! E
~e
I:: :2
III =
Q,~
1'l E~
::; ~
"" Gl
It
. .'
--- .v/l-L9
. ----- ----- .vIE-v,9 -----
._-~
,vl
9D
"
"
it
~
c=~z
iZi;::;:
~zg
~w~
S2:fu
wu-
u 15 z-
:::JLUO"- -0
ffi ~:2 II 9
z~z~r-~
~~9~o:g
f3~<(~'-"
~~g()cD~
LJ...-ltl)o...Cl
~
U
:I:
~
'"
(')
"''''
00
~~
00
,.ou
, ~
;{u..~tri~
o~~t52
J-,
5
z
.
.
.
0D
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Regarding the Resolution of Placement of the St. Benedict's Sign
In an effort to resolve the matter of the placement of a monument sign for the St. Benedict's
Senior Care Facility, the City of Monticello sets forth the following items of understanding:
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
As a result of the re-alignment of 7th Street, St. Benedict's has understood that a directional
monument sign would be allowed at the entrance to their facility. For maximum visibility, St.
Benedict's desires this sign at the northeast corner ofthe intersection of the private access
drive to their facility and 7th Street.
It is understood that actions as described in this memorandum cannot occur until such time
that St. Henry's Catholic Church has recorded the plat of ST. HENRY'S CHURCH 1st
ADDITION.
The private access drive to St. Benedict's as shown on the ST. HENRY'S CHURCH 1st
ADDITION is owned by St. Henry's Catholic Church. Execution of an amended easement
agreement with St. Henry's Catholic Church will allow St. Benedict's to use the drive for
access purposes.
The desired placement location for the proposed St. Benedict's sign is currently included
within Lot 1, Block 2 of Union Crossings, which is currently owned by Horne Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. (See Exhibit A.)
There is a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings. Lot
1, Block 2, Union Crossings is included within that Planned Unit Development.
APPLICATIONS
In order to accomplish placement ofthe sign in the desired location, the following City of
Monticello planning processes will be required: simple subdivision, rezoning, amendment to
planned unit development and variance to sign height, area and location.
The City of Monticello will prepare all required applications for signature by the appropriate
parties as indicated and outlined below.
SIMPLE SUBDNISION
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., has agreed to a subdivision ofland from Lot 1, Block 2 of Union
Crossings, thereby creating a new parcel ofland. The parcel to be subdivided incorporates
the desired location for the proposed sign and includes a portion of the private access drive
not currently within the property boundaries of St. Henry's Catholic Church. An illustration
of the proposed parcel is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A.
1
.
The City of Monticello will prepare the legal description for the parcel ofland to be
subdivided to accommodate the placement of the SI. Benedict's sign. The legal description
will be a metes and bounds description. The City of Monticello will fund the preparation of
this document and provide the property description to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. for review.
If the parcel's legal description is agreeable to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., application for
subdivision may proceed.
Subdivision may be accomplished under City ordinance by simple subdivision. Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc. and SI. Henry's Catholic Church will be required to co-sign an application for
simple subdivision. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. will sign as fee title property owner.
Application fees and deposits related to the simple subdivision application will be waived by
the City of Monticello.
Under Minnesota Statute 15.99, the City ofM;onticello will have 60 days to act on a
completed written application for subdivisionj The subdivision will be reviewed in a public
hearing by the Monticello Planning Commission, and reviewed for final action by the
Monticello City Council. !
.
Upon approval of the subdivision, the newly subdivided parcel is released from all
responsibilities under the existing Conditional Use Pennit for Planned Unit Development for
Union Crossings. The subdivision of this parcel in no way impacts any previous rights or
approvals granted specifically to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. by the approved Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings, and Home Depot's
improvements, if constructed as previously approved by the City of Monticello: (i) are in full
compliance with all approvals and permits previously granted by the City of Monticello; and
(ii) following such subdivision and the transfer of such subdivided parcel as described herein
will remain in full compliance with all approvals and permits previously granted by the City
of Monticello. All requirements and responsibilities under the Planned Unit Development
for Union Crossings are still applicable to Lot I, Block 2, Union Crossings. The City of
Monticello will send a letter re-stating the same to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
As a condition of subdivision and land transfer for the subdivided parcel, Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., requires that SI. Henry's Catholic Church enter into an agreement regarding the
terms and conditions for the use of the subdivided parcel. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. will
prepare this agreement and provide the agreement to St. Henry's Catholic Church for review
and signature. The document shall be executed prior to the transfer of land from Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc. to SI. Henry's Catholic Church. Alternatively, if acceptable to Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc. such conditions may be set forth in the deed transferring such land from
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to SI. Henry's Catholic Church
The newly subdivided parcel shall be incorporated into the Planned Unit Development for SI.
Henry's Catholic Church.
.
2
. LAND TRANSFER/PURCHASE
Ryan Companies, developer of the plat of Union Crossings and holder of the Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings, will be responsible for the
purchase price ofthe subdivided parcel and shall reimburse Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
accordingly.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., is not requesting any additional direct, monetary compensation or
considerations beyond the purchase price for the subdivided parcel. Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. is requiring that certain limitations and restrictions be imposed upon the signage that
may be constructed and installed upon the subdivided parcel, and is requiring a right of
reverter along with other legal and equitable remedies in the event the limitations and
restrictions are violated.
The purchase and transfer of the parcel to be subdivided shall be executed only upon
approval of the simple subdivision, rezoning, amendment to PUD and variances, required to
place the proposed sign on the subdivided parcel.
The City of Monticello has verified with Wright County that it will accept the subdivision by
metes and bounds.
.
The City of Monticello has verified with Wright County that the balance of 2007 property
taxes for Lot I, Block 2, Union Crossings will be payable upon recording of the simple
subdivision and the recording of the warranty deed. As such, the subdivision and warranty
deed will not be recorded until October of 2007, when the balance of annual property taxes is
due.
St. Henry's Catholic Church shall record the warranty deed for the subdivided parcel.
Ryan Companies will be responsible for payment of fees for the recording ofthe warranty
deed and for the deed taxes for the subdivided parcel.
In order for the simple subdivision to be recorded properly at Wri~t County, St. Henry's
Catholic Church will need to record the plat of ST. HENRY'S 1 S ADDITION.
The City of Monticello shall record the simple subdivision. The City of Monticello will be
responsible for the recording fees for the simple subdivision.
Special assessments for Lot I, Block 2, Union Crossings will not be adjusted or redistributed,
but shall remain as assigned via the executed development agreement for the Plat and
Planned Unit Development of Union Crossings, and/or the Operation and Easement
Agreement between Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Ryan Companies and Target Corporation
(the "OEA").
.
3
. REZONING
The parcel to be subdivided is zoned B-4 (Regional Business), consistent with the zoning for
the plat and Planned Unit Development of Union Crossings. The parcel will be required to
be rezoned to PS (Public/Semi-Public), consistent with the plat and Planned Unit
Development of St. Henry's Catholic Church.
An application for rezoning will need to be made by St. Henry's Catholic Church. St.
Henry's Catholic Church and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. will need to sign the application.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. will sign the application as current fee title property owner. The
City of Monticello waives the application and deposit fee for the rezoning application. The
application for rezoning will be reviewed consecutively and immediately after the application
for subdivision for the parcel.
Under Minnesota Statute 15.99, the City of Monticello will have 60 days to act on a
completed written application for rezoning oftlhe subdivided parcel. The rezoning will be
reviewed in a public hearing by the Montice1l1Planning Commission, and reviewed for final
action by the Monticello City Council.
AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELO . MENT
.
As the newly subdivided parcel will be released from the Union Crossings Planned Unit
Development, the City requires that the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development for St. Henry's Catholic Church be amended to incorporate the subdivided
parcel into the property owned by St. Henry's Catholic Church.
The amendment to PUD requires an application, which shall be signed by St. Henry's
Catholic Church and St. Benedict's, as the primary use of this parcel shall be for the
placement of the proposed sign. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. will also sign the application as
current fee title property owner. Application fees and deposits related to the amendment to
planned unit development application will be waived by the City of Monticello.
Under Minnesota Statute 15.99, the City of Monticello will have 60 days to act on a
completed written application for amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development. The amendment will be reviewed in a public hearing by the Monticello
Planning Commission, and reviewed for final action by the Monticello City Council.
The Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings is not
impacted by the subdivision and therefore does not require amendment.
VARIANCES
.
St. Benedict's is proposing to place a sign on the newly subdivided parcel in the location as
shown on Exhibit A. The proposed location is approximately less than _ feet off of the
property line.
The location of the proposed sign on the newly subdivided parcel requires a setback variance
based on the requirements ofthe Zoning Ordinance of the City of Monticello. According to
4
.
.
.
Section 3-9[C]7, "In any district, any portion of any sign exceeding two (2) square feet shall
be set back a distance equal to fifty percent (50%) of the required building setback for the
district, as defined in Section 3-3[C] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, as amended.". As
such, within the PS (Public/Semi-Public District), the minimum setback for a sign would be
20 feet.
The variance to setback requires an application, which shall be signed by St. Henry's
Catholic Church and St. Benedict's. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. will also sign the application
as current fee title property owner. Application fees and deposits related to the variance to
setback application will be waived by the City of Monticello.
Under Minnesota Statute 15.99, the City of Monticello will have 60 days to act on a
completed written application for amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development. The variance will be reviewed in a public hearing by the Monticello Planning
Commission, and reviewed for final action by the Monticello Planning Commission, as the
Planning Commission acts as the Board of Ad'ustment and Appeals for variance requests.
St. Benedict's is proposing a sign of a dimensi n larger than that allowed by Section 39[E] of
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The propo ed sign is shown in Exhibit B.
The variance to sign height and area requires application, which shall be signed by St.
Henry's and St. Benedict's. Home Depot U.SjA., Inc. will also sign the application as
current fee title property owner. The applicatipn fee and deposit are required and are the
responsibility ofSt. Benedict's. !
Under Minnesota Statute 15.99, the City of Monticello will have 60 days to act on a
completed written application for amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development. The variance will be reviewed in a public hearing by the Monticello Planning
Commission, and reviewed for final action by the Monticello Planning Commission, as the
Planning Commission acts as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for variance requests.
OTHER
St. Benedict's and St. Henry's shall be responsible for amending and executing any existing
joint agreement between these two organizations as related to the easements required for the
access drive and subdivided parcel.
All parties assume the payment of the individual legal fees incurred in the process described
above, regardless of the outcome of any decision or final action by the Monticello Planning
Commission or City Council.
As a condition to the transfer of such subdivided property, the parties acknowledge that
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Ryan Companies will need to execute and deliver an
amendment to the OEA releasing the land from the restrictions, etc. set forth in the OEA and
amending the Site Plan attached thereto. Such amendment of the OEA will not be effective
unless and until also executed and delivered on behalf of Target Corporation.
Memo ofUndel:Stailding - TAS 05Q7Q7.doc
5
.
10.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-desil!:nate
industrial land use to commercial land use in the area south of Chelsea Road
East and a request for Rezoninl!: from I-IA (Lil!:ht Industrial) to B-4 (Rel!:ional
Business. Applicant: Mills Fleet F~rm (NAC).
BACKGROUND
At the May 1 '" 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission tabled
action on this item. The Commission requested additional time to review the
supporting materials and testimony provided at the public hearing. As such, the
Commission has been provided with the May Planning Commission minutes as part
of this packet, as well as new supporting data items. Additionally, this report includes
new information from staff discussiond and research, so it will be important for the
Commission to review the report in de ail again.
Mills Fleet Farm has submitted an app ication for a request to rezone a parcel on the
south side of Chelsea Road East from -lA, Light Industrial, to B-4, Regional
Business. The applicant is also reques ing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the land use guide plan from I ustrial to Commercial. The subject is 33.66
acres in size. The above applications e requested to accommodate a 235,000 square
foot Mills Fleet Farm retail building. he current use of the site is fallow agricultural
land.
The current application is for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning
only. If the City recommends approval of the requests, other land use approvals
would be required. To accommodate the use, the applicant shall also be required to
obtain a Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage and Display for the main store, a
Conditional Use Permit for a Comprehensive Sign Plan, and Preliminary Plat
approval. All additional approvals must be processed as separate applications and
evaluated on their own merit.
Comprehensive Plan. The subject sit~ is currently guided for industrial land use in
the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1996. The policies of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding Economic Development are as follows:
. The purpose of the City's economic development activities is to broaden the City's
tax base.
. Monticello will target high quality businesses for its economic development
programs.
A Comprehensive Plan update is currently underway. The Comprehensive Plan Task
Force has considered the issues of a potential land use change in the subject area.
Individual input of the topic has been mixed. As such, the task force has not formally
recommended that the City change the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
as part of the update process. In specific reference to the subject site, the
1
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/0512007
.
Development framework portion of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan states that
"industrial areas in the southeast will infill, with a continued focus on higher quality
light industry near the school campus and with exposure to the interstate."
According to the current Comprehensive Plan, the City has 199 acres of 1-1 zoned
land, comprising 5.7 percent of the total area of the City. A more recent calculation
performed by City Staff found that the City currently has approximately 135.5 total
acres of industrial land (1-1, 1-2, and I-lA) available. Specifically within the
Monticello Commerce Center, 67.5 acres of industrial zoned are available. The
current Comprehensive Plan also states that, at the time of adoption, 113 acres of B-4
zoned land was available in the City. The update to the comprehensive plan discusses
the options for designating additional industrial-zoned land at various locations in the
orderly annexation area. Designating additional industrial-zoned land would be vitally
important for the City to consider upon any rezoning of the subject site to maintain
the total acreage of industrial-zoned land in the City.
.
Traffic. WSB & Associates, Inc. has ~repared a draft Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the site, and has summarized existing conditions on Chelsea
Road and future traffic forecasts for th proposed Fleet Farm use. All development
related traffic will access Chelsea Roa to enter and exit the site. The existing
corridor is a two-lane facility. Howev~r, Chelsea Road from Fallon Avenue to CSAH
18 is planned for reconstruction in 20! as a three-lane facility. A roadway analysis
was performed for Chelsea Road from Fallon Avenue to CSAH 18 as part of the
EA W. For purposes ofthis study, ope tions were analyzed for the improved three-
lane roadway. .
Chelsea Road currently operates as a local street, but is designated and is planned as a
major collector. It currently carries an estimated 3,650 vehicles per day. The future
analysis of Chelsea Road estimates that the proposed retail user will generate
approximately 10,400 vehicle trips each day.
According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, general Light
Industrial land uses produce 51.8 vehicles trips per acre each weekday, and 8.73 trips
per day on weekends. Therefore, if the current zoning remains, the 33.66 acre site
could be expected to generate 1,744 vehicles trips per day on weekdays, and 294 trips
per day on weekends. In summary, a commercial land use designation is expected to
generate 6,750 more trips per day than an industrial land use. It is not known how
daily peak traffic patterns for both uses will interact or intersect without further study.
The peak traffic demands for the uses may offset potential conflicts.
.
The HCM analysis typically provides results in the form of a letter grade from A to F,
otherwise called level of service (LOS). The letter is meant give a qualitative
estimate ofthe operational efficiency or effectiveness. The system is set up similar to
a report card, with A representing high quality operations and F representing poor
operations. At LOS A, motorists experience very little delay or interference. The
level of service at the intersection of Chelsea Road and CSAH 18 is currently an A
2
PlalUling Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
grade. The introduction ofthe proposed commercial user would increase the future
level of service at this intersection from an A to a B.
Economic Development. From an economic development standpoint there are
additional considerations when evaluating the highest and best use of the site. Said
considerations include creation of livable wage jobs from industrial users, retention of
existing industrial users near the subject site, and future market value of existing
industrial land and buildings in the area. It is fair to assume that wages for industrial
employees are higher than those for commercial employees. However, it is also fair
to assume that industrial development will take longer to occur than commercial
development.
.
One of the reasons that cities do commercial and industrial development is tax
generation. Based on a table provided by the Economic Development Director at the
previous meeting, building valuations ~or B-4 users and I-IA users are relatively
comparable. A revised comparative an' lysis of building and land use values for B-4
commercial and I -I A industrial prope . es has been prepared and may be found
attached as part of the Supporting Data The analysis illustrates that although
building valuations may be comparabl , the use ofTIF and the different absorption
rates for commercial versus industrial roperty can create a substantial tax base
differential.
History. In the past, the City has rez04ed property from industrial land use
designations to commercial land use designations on numerous occasions. Examples
of such rezoning include rezoning of the 74 Hoglund property from 1-2, Heavy
Industrial to B-4, Regional Business and PS, Public/Semi-Public and rezoning the 30
acre Monticello Marketplace site from I-lA, Light Industrial to B-4, Regional
Business.
ANALYSIS
In the following sections, information relating to both support ofthe re-designation to
commercial and support of maintaining the current industrial designation are
discussed.
A. The following is a summary of factors that support the request for rezoning
to commercial as an appropriate use for the site. These issues are intended to
serve as a guide for the City in evaluating the requests.
1. Location of industrial with current transportation facilities and development
pattern.
.
The site is located south of 1-94, and west of CSAH 18. Due to the construction of
the CSAH 18 interchange, the nature of the Chelsea Road area is shifting to a high
traffic area which is easily accessible from Interstate 94. This interchange was not in
place at the time the Monticello Commerce Center industrial park was developed, or
3
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
at the time the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The interchange has
encouraged commercial development on the north side of Interstate 94, including the
Union Crossings Development, which contains Target and Home Depot.
In that regard, staff believes it is important for the City to consider what land use
designation would have been deemed the highest and best use of the land had the
interchange been present prior to development. The subject site, as well as the
vacant land on the north side of Chelsea Road, currently has freeway exposure and
accessibility. However, freeway exposure for any property on the south side of
Chelsea Road could be restricted with future development on the north side of
Chelsea Road. The City has a limited amount ofland abutting Interstate 94, and
should carefully consider what type of development they would like visible from the
freeway.
.
Commercial and industrial uses tend to have very different characteristics and
aesthetics. While the Monticello Commerce Center industrial park does have private
covenants to instill control over aesthe ics, industrial uses are generally more inclined
to utilize outdoor storage, generate noi e, and construct buildings that hold
functionality as a top priority, rather th n aesthetics. Commercial uses are less
intense and typically more aesthetic all pleasing. In that regard, the City should
consider which land use designation is more appropriate for freeway exposure and
access.
2. Surrounding parcels demonstrate a mix of land uses.
The subject site is bordered by the Monticello Industrial Park to the east, office uses
to the west, vacant I-lAzoned land to the north, and the Monticello High School to
the south. While no formal requests have been submitted, without presupposing the
City's intent, widely accepted planning precepts suggest that the land on the north
side of Chelsea Road is likely to be converted to a commercial land use designation.
The freeway exposure and layout of these parcels are consistent with classic
commercial land use traits. Fleet Farm has stated that they are pursuing the purchase
of a 2.5 acre parcel on the north side of Chelsea Road, directly across from the subject
site, for their gas station use. However, the depth of the parcels on the north side of
the road is not sufficient to accommodate the main retail store. A formal request has
been received regarding rezoning of this parcel from I-lA, Light Industrial to B-3,
Highway Business. This request is being considered as a separate application.
Existing land uses surrounding the site include the following:
.
. Office uses to the west, zoned 1-1 A and 1-1.
. Monticello High School to the south, zoned R-1.
. Ultra-Machining Company, Inc. (UMC) to the east, zoned I-lA.
. Vacant land to the north, zoned I-1A.
4
Planning Connnission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
The office use to the west is a compatible land use in that it is commercial in nature.
The Monticello High School site to the south adds to the mix ofland uses, as it is
zoned R-I, Single Family Residential. The parcel to the east of the site is zoned I-IA
and contains a machining facility. Due to the mix of surrounding land uses, any
change to a commercial land use designation would not be characteristic of spot
zoning. It should also be noted that the land east of the site on Chelsea Road,
adjacent to the interchange, is zoned B-2, Limited Business.
B. The following is a summary of factors that support maintaining the Light
Industrial land use designation on the site. Again, these issues are intended to serve
as a guide the City in determining whether the requested commercial land use
designation is appropriate or inappropriate for the site.
1. An increase in traffic on Chelsea Road generated by a retail commercial use may
cause conflicting traffic patterns been retail commercial users and industrial
users.
.
As indicated above, a traffic analysis h s been performed for the site in reference to a
potential retail commercial user. That tudy found that the proposed retail user will
generate 11,179 trips each day. Also s noted previously, a commercial land use
designation is expected to generate 8,2 6 more trips per day than an industrial land
use.
Commonly held planning precepts recognize a conflict between commercial retail
traffic and industrial, or truck, traffic. Mixing industrial truck traffic and retail traffic
creates conflicts for both. Retail traffic may impede truck traffic due to the nature of
turning movements, time and distance necessary for acceleration, and the general
number of retail vehicles expected on Chelsea Road each day. Likewise, wide
turning movements and slow acceleration of industrial truck traffic may hinder retail
traffic.
2. Alternate sites exist within the City that are zoned and guided for commercial use.
Sufficient vacant parcels of similar size required for this use are available within an
area zoned B-4 along Highway 25, although there may be site constraints associated
with those parcels. Land adjacent to Highway 25 does not provide freeway exposure,
as sought by the applicant. However, Highway 25 does carry a great deal of traffic
and provides the opportunity for commercial exposure.
3. Incompatible land uses may affect the future value of industrial property.
.
The introduction of commercial users adjacent to an industrial park may cause the
future value of the industrial property to depreciate. Again, a commonly held
planning precept recognizes that conflicting land uses, such as commercial or
residential, in close proximity to industrial zoned property may affect the future value
of that property by changing the nature of the area.
5
Planning Connnission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
As a general rule it can be expected that a large commercial retailer would increase
property values in the area. However, this impact will have a varying effect
depending on the nature of the surrounding properties. Those properties that are in a
position to be redeveloped may benefit in the near future under an alternate land use
designation. However, for those property owners that have recently made significant
investments in their property with the notion that it would remain industrial, there is
the potential that the introduction of a commercial use may have the opposite effect.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend denial of the, request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning, based on the findings for denial ofthe request
contained within the Conclusions section of the May I, 2007 staff report.
2. Motion to recommend approval of he request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to B-4, egional Business to accommodate Mills Fleet
Farm retail store, based on the findi gs for approval of the request contained
within the Conclusions section of t e May I, 2007 staff report.
.
If the City chooses to rezone the land t B-4 (Regional Business) as requested by the
applicant, the designation would also allow for a number of other retail uses,
including big box commercial, in the event that Fleet Farm does not pursue the site,
or vacates the site at any point in the future.
3. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to accommodate the proposed Mills Fleet Farm retail
use from I-IA to PUD, based on a finding that the proposed land use is
compatible with the adjacent industrial land use designation, and will not have a
detrimental affect on surrounding properties.
In regard to the proposed motor fuel station use, as part of the subsequent request
item on this agenda, the City may recommend that the applicant pursue purchasing
the 2.5 acres on the north side of Chelsea Road, which may be rezoned from I-lA,
Light Industrial, to B-3, Highway Business.
.
Staff also offers the option of rezoning the site to PUD, Planned Unit Development,
instead of the requested B-4 designation. Rezoning the property to PUD allows for
commercial land, but can require them in a manner that minimizes negative aspects of
retail commercial use in the area by requiring strict performance standards. A PUD
zoning designation for the 33.66 acre site would allow for a more extensive review
process, allowing the City more discretion over any future development. The
applicant would also be required to comply with the general PUD guidelines, which
allow for flexibility in performance standards with the understanding that the
6
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
development will be held to higher standards of site and building design than would
ordinarily be required.
The City currently allows PUD via the Conditional Use Permit process, and therefore
an ordinance amendment would be required to establish a PUD district. The
ordinance amendment would also allow the City to set goals and parameters for
acceptable development, architectural controls, and specific uses in the PUD District.
This district may be formulated to allow for certain retail commercial users.
In that regard, the applicant would be encouraged to pursue purchase of the
referenced parcel on the north side of Chelsea Road, which could be rezoned to B-3,
Highway Business, or B-2, Limited Business, both of which permit gas stations. This
approach would allow the City to further limit the types of commercial uses that
would be allowed next to the industrial park. As previously stated, the north side of
Chelsea Road is characteristic of a cla sic commercial district, and in that regard the
rezoning to B-3 or B-2 maybe approp 'ate.
CONCLUSION
.
Mills Fleet Farm has submitted a requ st for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Rezoning of a 33.66 acre parcel within the Monticello Commerce Center. The City's
current long range land use plan identifies the subject site for industrial land uses.
Regarding this request, staff offers the above alternative actions.
If the City chooses Alternative 1, to deny the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning of a 33.66 acre parcel within the Monticello Commerce
Center, this action may be supported by the following findings:
1. The subject site is currently designated for industrial land uses in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for higher quality light
industry near the school campus and with exposure to the interstate.
2. Alternate sites exist within the City that are zoned properly and large enough to
accommodate the proposed use.
3. The increase in traffic volumes on Chelsea Road produced by a retail commercial
user will be detrimental to the existing industrial uses. In general, retail
commercial traffic will also conflict with industrial/truck traffic.
4. The introduction of commercial land use will be detrimental to the existing
industrial properties, and may affect the future value of these properties.
5. The existing industrial use is the highest and best use of the land.
.
If the City chooses to approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
re-designate the land from industrial to commercial, and a request for rezoning from
7
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/0512007
I -I A to B-4, staff recommends Alterative 3 above. This recommendation for approval
may be supported with the following findings:
I. The subject site is surrounded by a mix of land uses and the area is not
exclusively industrial. Therefore, the requested action would not result in spot
zoning.
2. The City has a limited amount ofland available with direct freeway exposure, and
believes that the highest and best use of this land is commercial.
3. The construction ofthe CSAH 18 interchange has changed the nature of the area,
adding freeway access and higher traffic volumes. With that in mind, the City
believes the highest and best use ofthe land is commercial.
4. The increased traffic on Chelsea Road will not have a detrimental effect on
existing properties.
If the City does choose to approve the equest to rezone the property, planning staff
would recommend that the subject site be rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit
Development, as opposed to B-4, Regi nal Business. This recommendation would
allow the City to establish architectura controls and specific parameters for
development.
.
The Economic Development Director has recommended that the City maintain the
industrial land use designation and I -I A zoning designation.
In the event that commercial uses are introduced, the City may want to consider a
broader scope of commercial uses due to the location of vacant land in the area. This
may include redevelopment of existing industrial properties with blight issues.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
.
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Exhibit J:
Exhibit K:
Exhibit L:
Aerial Site Image (WSB & Associates EA W Figure 3)
Aerial Image - Southeast Area
Applicant Narrative
Monticello Zoning Map
1996 Monticello Comprehensive Plan - Southeast Monticello Land
Use Guide
Surrounding Use Images
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use Map
Monticello Zoning Ordinance - B-4 (Regional Business) District
Monticello Zoning Ordinance - I-IA (Light Industrial) District
IDC Resolution
Property Owner Petition
Letter from UMC dated 4/20/07
8
.
Exhibit M:
Exhibit N
Exhibit 0:
.
.
Planning Connnission Agenda- 06/05/2007
Letter from UMC dated 5/23/07
Response Letter to UMC dated 5/24/07
Real Estate Taxes Comparative Analysis
9
. Figure 3. 2006 Aerial Photograph
Mills Fleet Farm EAW
~ Monticello, MN
Legend 0
D Mills Fleet Fann EAW
250
500 N ...
. Feet W~E.~
S "'~"""
lOB
.
.
.
.
IOC
.
NARRATIVE - Chelsea Road Development
Mills Properties Inc. has a purchase agreeme?t with Monticello Industrial Park Inc. to
purchase approximately 33 acres described a~ follows:
That part of lots 11, 18 and 19 AUditorl Subdivision No. One lying East of
Monticello Commerce Center First Addition, Monticello Commerce Center
Third Addition and Monticello CommerCe Center Firth Addition and lying
West of Monticello Commerce Center Sixth Addition being part of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25, Wright
County, Minnesota which lies southwesterly of the following described
line: Commencing at the northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter;
thence on an assumed bearing of South 1 degree 14 minutes 38 seconds
West along the West line of said North~est Quarter, a distance of 708.88
feet to the point of beginning of the linel to be described; thence South 63
degrees 32 minutes 35 seconds East, <jl distance of 4016.29 feet and
there terminating. ~
Although zoned industrial (1-1A), Mills Prop rties Inc. requests that it be rezoned
to Regional Business District (B-4) so they. an construct a Mills Fleet Farm retail
facility with a convenience storel fuel statiol1 and an automatic car wash facility.
A change In the comprehensive plan from i~dustrial (I) to commercial (C) is also
required as part of the City ordinances. I
The retail facility would be approximately 235.doo sf in size. It would house the retail
floor, the accompanying warehouse and receiving, and the automotive repair. In
addition, there would be an enclosed yard area that is screened from the neighbors that
is set up to display gardening materials and supplies, yard goods, farm supplies, and
overstock of items that can be stored outside. The loading docks and waste receptacles
would also be in this area away from the general public eye. Hours of operation are
typically 8:00 am to 9:00 pm.
The convenience store and fuel station is planned to be about 4,200 sf with 23 fueling
points, including all grades of fuel, diesel fuel and kerosene. Hours of operation are
typically 6:00 am to 10:00 pm
A multi-bay car wash is also proposed. 11 is automatic with no attendants present at the
site except those responsible through the convenience store. There are 4 bays planned
with 2 being for touch less washes and 2 being brush or soft-gloss washes. Hours of
operation are typically 24 hours per day.
.
.
CL Q)
~ "0
LLO
Z <0
..t
~ .11
< .-/I Z
- 0
< 0 ~r
"
() N ~~ !
~ 0
0
N
~
r
"o},
.
6
~I
I~
"
"
"
"
,-
"
"
,,'
"
.........
"
,,"
(L......"
......<-
"
-"
"
$
(
~
$
$
~.
f.
-<:10..
~
~
"
~.
~
's-
f
$'
"
$
i
$
..~
~
t.
$
"
$
.'-!
i ~
';.';i ""'-'.' ...;;/ $
,(. ~{,.. !
i;'~~/, I
IV .:t: "....::.!
"~"~;;4'i;,!4,. .
. .;;,;,;7~lji,..L-.f' '''''..
. i!.' . q",,-,..-
i I 'r . . : ~('''~'''''<I, ff
:~rt;__~....... '. ",;; i " .,'?"""",
'co -' " " /.:/.'_Z:, . _ /1
J - ...... 1,.$,17.
'-'.."- - v
j;?
t
i-
$
"
~
"
~
~
,,'
"
"
.'
"
........~
"
",
I,
-
/:':'<
,(
l,.~'--"
"-:"";/':5::,'
-
'1..
o
(!)
()
~
c
o
~
z
:!:!Z
~tDU5~J
? LU i'i:/)
:::: cr: cr ,.:J __,
<--J ...... ,v <1:
6~~i:~;;,:s
r.::r:nu):r.r..J_........
---l ;::. Z :.:; Cl: CL "'J
<(r\l..L':"--ILw~,;:-_
::;::WC'F2::,,::~
~j~6.~oS;
O::OC~;:-~:?.:_
<( r_~ _ ''''-
......
U)
ro
(!)
..c
......
:::l
o
if)
~ [JII~I
.1,
. ><;;_;:z;:~~'>. ~
/'. At
/'....>
I. : ".:C ~::.::'
/"'/~:t~.
;~..".,
'f
'J
.~
<,
JOE
I
e~
ell
~
S
....
Qj
r:n
;:;;J
~
=
~
....;l
ell
=
....
~
=
=
o
loo
loo
=
rFJ.
==
E--
~
~
~
~
IOF
0;
(!)
~
..c
-
::l
o
<Zl
.
.
w
en
::::>>
IClI
Z
CI:
...
-
"
Z
-
2 e
"
z
-
a
z
::::>>
.~
D::
::::>>
en
io~
....
.
'II::
:'Cl
Gl
!
N
'/,'(i
o
.c:
~
.
.
.
WI-I
CHAPTER 14
"B-4" REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION:
14-1 : Purpose
14-2: Permitted Uses
14-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
14-4: Conditional Uses
14-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B-4," regional business, district is to provide for the
establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve
customers from the entire community or region.
14-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a "B-4" district:
[A] All permitted uses as allowed in a "B-1", "B-2", and "B-3" district.
[B] Antique or gift shop.
[C] Amusement places (such as dance halls or roller rinks).
[0]
Auto accessory stores.
[E] Enclosed boat and marine sales.
[F] Books, office supplies, or stationery stores.
[G] Bowling alleys.
[H] Carpet, rugs, and tile.
[I] Coin and philatelic stores.
[J] Copy service but not including press or newspaper.
[K] Costume, clothes rental.
[L] Department and discount stores.
[M] Dry cleaning, including plant accessory thereto, pressing, and repairs.
[N] Dry goods store.
[0]
Electrical appliance stores, including incidental repair and assembly but not
fabricating or manufacturing.
[P] Employment agencies.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/1
[Q] Finance companies.
.
[R]
Furniture stores.
[U] Haberdasheries and ladies ready-to-wear.
[V] Insurance sales, claims and branch offices.
[W] Jewelry stores and watch repair.
[X] Leather goods and luggage stores.
[Y] Record - music shops.
[Z] Restaurants, tea rooms, cafes, taverns, and off-sales liquor stores.
[AA] Sewing machine sales and service.
[BB] Shoe stores.
[CC] Tailor shops.
[DD] Theatres not of the outdoor drive-in type.
. [EE] Toy stores.
[FF] Travel bureaus, transportation ticket offices.
[GG] Variety stores, 5 & 10 stores, and stores of similar nature.
[HH] Wearing apparel.
[II] Government and public utility buildings.
[JJ] Mortuaries
[KK] Body Piercing Establishments
[LL] Tattoo Parlors
(#286,2/10/97)(#330,9/13/99)
14-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a
"B-4" district:
[A] All permitted accessory uses in a "B-3" district.
.
14-4:
CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "B-4" district:
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/2
[A] Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that:
. l. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or if abutting a residential district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], ofthis ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of
this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[B] Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal and accessory use and
including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons, provided
that:
. l. Outside service, sales, and equipment rental connected with the
principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of
the principal use. This percentage may be increased as a condition of
the conditional use permit.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of the
neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of
this ordinance.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[C] Custom manufacturing, restricted production and repair limited to the
following: Art, needlework, jewelry from precious metals, watches, dentures,
. and optical lenses, provided that:
l. Such use is accessory as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2, of this
ordinance to the principal use of the property.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/3
.
.
.
2.
Does not conflict with the character of development intended for this
district.
3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered
satisfactorily met.
[0] Motor fuel station, auto repair-minor, and tire and battery stores and service,
provided that:
I. Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale of
motor fuels and/or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or
business, the standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for
motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are,
however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other
uses of the property.
2. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and
site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to
cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of the lot.
3.
The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or
plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage
which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
4. A minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500)
square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150)
feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet.
5. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be
installed.
6. A curb not less than six (6) inches above grade shall separate the
public sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas.
7. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct
source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the
public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section
2 [H], of this ordinance.
8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be
installed.
9.
At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five
(5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
10.
Each light standard landscaped.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/4
.
.
.
11.
Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of
abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G), of this ordinance.
12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with
through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3, Section 5, of
this ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
13. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall
be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of
this ordinance.
14. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
15. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13,
Section 4, of this ordinance.
16. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in Chapter 13,
Section 4, be subject to a conditional use permit and be in compliance
with Chapter 13, Section 4 [F], of this ordinance.
17.
All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when
the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds
that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or
better by modifYing the conditions.
18. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[E) Machinery sales.
[F) Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this
ordinance.
[G) Boarding House, provided that:
I. The building/structure is found to be substandard and/or blighted or
contributing to blight and in need of substantial rehabilitation.
a. The applicant must provide an overall development concept
plan.
b.
The applicant must demonstrate that said rehabilitation is the
most feasible use alternative and that said rehabilitation is not
remodeling or simple structural alterations to accommodate a
change in use.
2. There shall be no less than ten (10) units nor more than 18 units, and
each unit shall be of a design considered to be an efficiency apartment.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/5
.
.
.
3.
At least one unit shall be on the ground floor fully accessible to
handicapped persons.
4. At least 50% of the floor area on the ground floor shall be developed as
complete restaurant facilities with a minimum seating capacity of two
seats per dwelling unit but in no case less than 25 seats.
a. Restaurant shall not be eligible for licenses regulating the sale
of intoxicating liquors, non-intoxicating malt liquors, wine, or
the display and consumption of liquors.
b. The restaurant shall be so equipped to provide food service to
the dwelling units if required.
5.
The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and
site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to
cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of the lot.
6.
All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when
the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds
that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or
better by modifying the conditions.
(#138,7/23/84)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/6
.
SECTION:
15A-I:
15A-2:
15A-3:
15A-4:
15A-5:
15A-I:
15A-2:
.
.
lOr
CHAPTER 15A
"I-IA" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Permitted Accessory Uses
Conditional Uses
"I-IA" Design and Site Plan Standards
PURPOSE: The purpose of the I-lA, Light Industrial District is to provide for the
establishment of limited light industrial business offices, limited light manufacturing,
wholesale showrooms and related uses in an environment which provides a high level
of amenities, including landscaping, preservation of natural features, architectural
controls, and other features.
(#298, 10/13/97)
PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a I-IA District:
(#298, 10113/97)
[A] Radio and television
[B] Research laboratories
[C] Trade school
[D] Machine shops
[E] Paint mixing
[F] Bus terminals and maintenance garage
[G] Warehouses
[H] Laboratories
[I] Essential Services
[J] Governmental and public utility buildings
[K] Manufacturing, compounding, assembly, or treatment of articles or
merchandise
[L] Manufacture of musical instruments, novelties, and molded rubber products
[M] Manufacture or assembly of electrical appliances, instruments, and devices
[N] Manufacture of pottery or other similar ceramic products using only previously
pulverized clay and kilns fired only by electricity or natural gas
[0] Manufacture and repair of electrical signs, advertising structure, light sheet
metal
products, including heating and ventilation equipment
[P] Blacksmith, welding, or other metal shop
[Q] Laundries, carpet, and rug cleaning
[R] Bottling establishments
[S] Building material sales and storage
[T] Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio
[U] Camera and photographic supplies manufacturing
[V] Cartage and express facilities
[W] Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of manufacturing of paper and related
products but not processing ofraw materials for paper production
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
15A11
.
.
.
15A-3:
15A-4:
[X]
[V]
[Z]
[AA]
[BB]
[CC]
[DO]
[EE]
[FF]
[GG]
[HH]
Dry cleaning establishments and laundries
Electric light or power generating stations, electrical and electronic products
manufacture, electrical service shops
Engraving, printing, and publishing
Jewelry manufacturing
Medical, dental, and optical laboratories
Storage or warehousing
Wholesale business and office establishments
Commercial/professional offices
Wholesale showrooms
Conference centers
Commercial printing establishments
PERMITTED ACCESS OR Y USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a
"I-IA" District: (#298, 10/13/97)
[A] Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the
principal use but such use shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross
floor space of the principal use:
1. The parking requirements of Chapter 3, Section 5, are complied with in
full.
2.
The off-street loading requirements of Chapter 3, Section 6, are
complied with in full.
CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "I-IA" District:
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) (#298,10/13/97)
[A] Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that:
I. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], ofthis ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of
this ordinance.
5.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
15A12
.
.
.
15A-5:
[B]
Industrial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this
ordinance.
[C] Indoor limited retail sales accessory to office/manufacturing uses provided
that:
1. Location:
(a) All sales are conducted in a clearly defined area of the principal
building reserved exclusively for retail sales. Said sales area
must be physically segregated from other principal activities in
the building.
(b) The retail sales area must be located on the ground floor of the
principal building.
2. Sales Area. The retail sales activity shall not occupy more than fifteen
(15) percent ofthe gross floor area of the building.
3. Access. The building where such use is located is one having direct
access to a collector or arterial level street without the necessity of
using residential streets.
4.
Hours. Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The
provisions of this section are considered and satisfactorily met.
"I-IA" DESIGN AND SITE PLAN STANDARDS: The following minimum
requirements shall be observed in the "I-IA" District subject to additional
requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this chapter: (#298, 10/13/97)
[A] Lot Coverage. There shall be no minimum or maximum lot coverage
requirements in this district. (#298, 10/13/97)
[B] Building Type and Construction and Roof Slope
1. Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited
to no more than fifty (50) percent of anyone wall if it is coordinated
into the architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building
shall be aluminum of twenty-six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall
be limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope.
2. In the "I-IA" District, all buildings constructed of curtain wall panels
of finished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced
with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete case in place or pre-case
panels on all wall surfaces. (#298,10/13/97)
[C]
Parking. Detailed parking plans in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 5,
shall be submitted for City review and approved before a building permit may
be obtained.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
15N3
.
.
.
[D]
Loading. A detailed off-street loading plan, including berths, area, and access
shall be submitted to the City in conformance with the provisions of Chapter
3, Section 6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
[E] Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], shall be submitted to the Council and approved before a
building permit may be obtained.
In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], all parcels
developed along the boundary between the I-lA zone and a residential zone
shall include planting of evergreens as a screen between I-IA and R-l uses.
The evergreens planted shall be planted every 15 feet along the property
boundary.
(#298, 10/13/97)
[F] Usable Open Space. Every effort shall be made to preserve natural ponding
areas and features of the land to create passive open space.
[G] Signage. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted in conformance with
Chapter 3, Section 9.
Lot Requirements:
Lot Area -
Lot Width -
30,000 sq ft
100 feet
Setbacks:
Front Yard -
Side Yard -
Rear Yard -
50 feet
30 feet
40 feet
(#221, 2/24/92)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
15A/4
.
.
.
/"
100'
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
April 3, 2007
IDC Mission Statement
"To Increase the industrial tax base, to create jobs at liveable wage-levels, and to
maintain a favorable and desirable industrial environment In the City of Monticello."
Dear Planning Commissioners Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, Lloyd Hilgart, Barry Voight, and
Charlotte Gabler:
Since the Planning Commission is comprised of some new members, please allow me to give a little
history of the Monticello Industrial Development Committee (IDC). The IDC was established in the
1970's by the City of Monticello and Chamber of Commerce. It's mission was to increase the tax
base of the City of Monticello. In the 1980's, the IDC spearheaded the efforts designating the City of
Monticello as one of the first Star Cities in the State of Minnesota and expanded its mission statement
to include business retention and expansion. Also in the 1980's, the City hired it's first Economic
Development Director and in later years, the creation of jobs at liveable wage-levels became a priority.
Currently, fourteen business and civic leaders sit on the IDC and meet monthly along with Mayor
Herbst and Council Member Mayer.
With an application request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to re-zone approximately 33-acres
of land south of Chelsea Road from Light Industrial (I-IA) to Regional Business (8-4), the IDC
discussed the impact of a regional retail district in an established and zoned industrial district. It must
be W1derstood. the IDC supports and welcomes a Mill's Fleet Farm to the City of Monticello.
The IDC does not endorse the specific site selected along Chelsea Road.
At the IDC meeting of April 3, 2007, the members approved the following motion: The IDC
recommends the entire existing Industrial-zoned land on the south side of Chelsea Road
between Fallon Avenue and County Road 18 remain an Industrial use.
The IDC noted these factors:
1. The existing land use of the Monticello Commerce Centeris I-lA - The purpose of Light
Industrial District is to provide for establishment oflimited light industrial business offices,
limited light manufacturing, wholesale showrooms and related uses in an environment which
provides a high level of amenities, including landscaping, preservation of natural features,
architectural controls, and other features.
2. The application is to re-zone 33 acres of the Monticello Commerce Center to B-4 - The
purpose of a Regional Business District is to provide for the establishment of commercial and
service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region.
.
.
.
April 3, 2007
Page 2
3. Manufacturing/industrial businesses make site selections based on Iike-l)'pe businesses and
compatible land uses.
4. Local manufacturing businesses such as Twin City Die Castings, Ultra Machining Company
(UMC), Suburban Manufacturing, and others made long-term investments and a commitment
to the City of Monticello. They continue to create jobs at liveable wage-levels. Each company
made its site selection based on the I-IA District zone.
5. A B-4 District increases both the pedestrian-foot traffic, customer vehicle traffic, and
goods/merchandise delivery traffic thereby increasing safety and security concerns of the
surrounding manufacturing/industrial businesses.
6. Due to the nature of big box retailers, will the capital investments made by manufacturing
businesses be impacted?
7. The retention of the I-IA District supports the goal to create jobs at liveable wage-levels
thereby generating new dollars to support the local economy (to purchase decent housing,
support local businesses, and support local government services.)
8. Other commercial zoned sites are available for Mill's Fleet Farm. a) Site at Chelsea
Road/Cedar/Edmondson. b) Site at Chelsea Road/School Blvd. c) Site at southeast comer of
1-94/County Road 18.
The IDC also approved a second motion. The IDC recommends the existing industrial-zoned
land on the north side of Chelsea Road between the proposed Fallon Avenue Bridge and
County Road 18 remain an industrial use.
1. Should the entire area be re-zoned commercial and the existing manufacturing businesses
become the minority, in some cases, the conflicts between the two land uses has resulted in
forcing the manufacturing businesses out or to leave.
2. The retention of the I-lA District supports the goal to create jobs at liveable wage-levels
thereby generating new dollars to support the local economy. (To purchase decent housing,
support local businesses, and support local government services.)
The IDC requests the Planning Commission consider their recommendation. Should you have
questions, please contact me at 763-263-7625 or another mernber of the IDC.
Respectfully,
ON BEHALF OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
-JI/~
~~~enedetto
Vice Chair
c: IDC Members and File
.
-1.........".'.
.
10 fL-
Twin City Die Castings Company
520 chelsea road
monticello, minnesota 55362
(763) 271.5060' (ax (763) 271.5070
April 27, 2007
Mr. Rob Dragsten, Monticello Planning Commission Chair
1226 River Street West
Monticello, Minnesota, 55362
Dear Mr. Dragsten:
Enclosed is a rezoning protest petition signed by the property owners along Chelsea
Road. We request that you accept this petition for consideration by members of the
Planning COmmission.
Sincerely,
.
pa~~~ /-i~~
Human Resources Department
.
.
.
.
REZONING PROTEST PI: 11110N
We, the undersigned property owners within the statutory area of notification
related to the area for which a rezoning is sought, hereby file a protest to the
City of Monticello against the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and
rezoning of the land on both sides of Chelsea Road from Fallon Avenue to County
Road 18 from light Industrial (I-1A) to Regional Business (B-4) zoning.
By combining incompatible businesses, the proposed change would negatively
affect the industrial businesses already established. The negative affects indude
but are not limited to the following; Create high volume traffic, bring about
security issues, decrease property values, and hinder future Industrial business
expansion.
We ask that you continue to support the plan that had been put in place to
develop industrial business in Monticello by recommending the application for
rezoning be denied.
//
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
(Address and lor lot and block number)
1f( rU04- J2J
, 00 ?r44...r<".d.
ao \ ~Q~: f.2o<>--~
~/3 ~c <.;t.J40
C}f;,co M~
;;lOt
"ZIP Dv
'20 Ct.~.Js
o'
DATE
1/ .- :;. 1-/ -07
r.-r-';;;" Y-c/')7
4- 'Vi -0,
o/'/;;l5',Id7
1-zS-07
L{-;JS'O-;1
1.f,'J,~- 477
- ,
'"1,1f,-D?
4.(, J-C-o,?
101.-
.
4120/07
Council Members,
As the President of an Industrial facility here in Monticello, I have grave concerns on the
direction of "rezoning" of our industrial areas to commercial. More specifically, the
future of Monticello and the town's ability to attract and retain high paying jobs for our
local community and residents.
The issue at hand is good paying jobs. Here at UMC, we pay very competitive wages.
Our benefit package that we offer to all of our employees is very attractive. Not only do
we offer medical, dental and 401k, we offer the opportunity for an individual to make a
decent wage.
The discussion as of late, revolving around rezoning, is short sighted. Yes, it is
impressive to see these big box stores, but at what cost to our community? If our land is
not available to industry, where will the Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and other world
class manufacturers go? Ask yourselves this question, whose employees are making a
stronger wage - An average employee at one of these big box stores or someone at
manufacturing companies like UMC?
.
In looking at the big picture, how will this impact Monticello? An individual with a
greater income has the opportunity to buy a nicer house, newer cars and trucks, and spend
their money locally if they choose. The tax base would have greater opportunity with
higher standards ofliving. Those bigger houses and increased values translate into
greater revenue for the city. Greater revenue for the city means more opportunities to
help a greater cross section of our people here in Monticello. Will you get that same
level of revenue from someone making above minimum wage?
UMC moved to Monticello in 2003. We moved here because we were lead to believe
that the community was interested in maintaining a higher standard ofliving, by offering
the opportunity to its people to work at high paying tilcilities. We built our building with
the option of expanding an additional 40,000 square feet. All of our decisions were based
on an "industry friendly" community like Monticello. If all of our land is rezoned
commercial, what happens to the value created by employers like WSI, Twin City Die
Castings, and UMC? Where will the next manufacturing building be built, most likely,
not in Monticello.
I ask for you to keep your word. Continue to be the "Industry Friendly" environment that
you were in 2003. Look long term as to the opportunity for young people to stay in the
community with good paying jobs. I ask that you not rezone our industrial areas to
commercial.
.
Donald J. Tomann ~
P~&ff:~
tOOl T - AVH
03^13:J3~
'OM
Page 1 of2
.
-u,.c
500 D>eIna R_
M_.MN 5S362
T........... (7631271-5200
Fa (763) 271-524S
ULlRA MACHINING
COMPANY
.0'...... ..TOND orH...
May 23, 2007
Respected Council Members and Planning Commission Members:
With regard to the rezoning issue surrounding Fleet Farm, as a local business owner, I have a few unresolved
points of discussion.
If we set aside the contract, the concerns business owners have about their property values, safety, traffic, etc. we
are left with questions that have not been addressed thus far.
. . If the zoning is changed does that automatically change my zoning?
. If it does not, do I need to apply and go through the process?
. How long will I be able to apply for rezoning?
. If I rezone to a commercial zoning will my taxes go up?
. IfI do not apply right away will my taxes go up?
. IfI do not apply right away then can I be assured that I will be able to change at anytime? Meaning, will
we be grandfathered in automatically by a future councilS, 10, 15,20 years from now and so on? Or am I
left to deal with that alone in the future?
. We built a new building and moved to Monticello in August of 2003. There was no disclosure of
rezoning at that time. Why, as a company that would be directly impacted, were we not consulted or
invited to participate in a contract discussion between the city and other land owners with regard to
rezoning, and the impacts to surrounding people and our property rights?
As business owners in the city of Monticello, I am requesting that we be given a chance to discuss these questions
and get answers from the city before any changes to zoning or Chelsea Road reconstruction are finalized.
Although the business owners are being told that the reconstruction project on Chelsea Road has nothing to do
with the possible rezoning of industrial land to commercial, I would like to point out that based on the Assessment
Agreement made in June 2005, it appears that there is direct correlation.
.
On June 21, 2005, the Assessment Agreement Doc. No. A 964085 was recorded and filed. In that agreement,
there are four places that address future rezoning and Chelsea Road design:
Page 2 of2
.
Item #5e. Deferral of Assessments. If the Project and the ifuture of Chelsea Road Proj ect are not fully completed
and finally accepted by the City by December 31, 2008, the January I, 20 II date for the end of the deferrals will
be extended by one year for each year beyond 2008 that the Projects are not completed.
Item #8 Conveyance of Easements. Owner will convey to the City at no cost contemporaneously with the
execution of this Agreement, the temporary and permanent easements relating to the future Chelsea Road Proj ect,
trail, and trunk sewer, all of which are described on Exhibit C hereto. The easements shall include the necessary
consents from any mortgagee or other party having an interest in the easement area.
Item #9 No Additional Assessments for Chelsea Road or Fallon A venne. The Subj ect Property will not be
further assessed for the projected 2006 Chelsea Road reconstruction project, the proposed future improvements to
Fallon Avenue, the Fallen Avenue Overpass or the proposed traffic signal light at the intersection ofC.S.A.H 18
and School Boulevard.
Item #13 Chelsea Road Desil!n. City will cooperate with owner on the design of Chelsea Road in order to make
sure service stubs and curb cuts are reasonably located to accommodate future development. The City's final
design of the proposed improvements will be provided to owner for its review on or before 20 days prior to the
proposed bid date. '
At the very least, I ask that the final decision on the Chelsea Road improvements be put off until a final decision
is made on the property being rezoned. If the property is to remain industrial, the suggestions made thus far for
improvements would not be appropriate in my opinion.
. The fundamental purpose of the city doing a comprehensive plan is to give direction for the future so members of
the community can make decisions. UMC and other businesses made plans for their future growth based on the
comprehensive plan that the city had established for this area. In a way, this is an agreement between the city and
members of the business community. Now the city is looking at changing the agreement and we are handcuffed
by the uncertainty this has created due to unanswered questions.
I am simply asking the City Council to take away this uncertainty before making a decision on the current
rezoning request. Give myself and other business owners the time to sit and discuss these questions as well as
other questions that are not listed. That way the answers to these questions can be honored by future city council
members.
Thank you,
~J-r::....
Don Tomann
President
UMC
500 Chelsea Road
Monticello, MN 55362
.
IDN
;1/1)
il;!
May 24, 2007
,<..)~;:\^.X5, .:</.:-,>6,
.1. Y 'j L'i '1
MONTICELLO
Mr. Don Tomann
UMC
500 Chelsea Road
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Tomann,
Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable input regarding the Mills Fleet Farm requests.
At this time, I would like to address the questions posed in your letter dated May 23"', 2007.
1. If the zonin!! is chan!!ed does that automatically chan!!e my zonin!!?
.
No. The zoning requests made by Mills Properties, Inc. are for specific, legally described pieces
of property. The City has received requests for rezoning on two parcels which are shown on the
attached Exhibit A. If approved, a rezoning covers this area only. The requests include only that
property which the landowner has consented to request for rezoning. It does not include UMC.
Additionally, in regard to the comprehensive plan amendment, the request was also related to
these specific parcels only. However, as part of their review, a factor the Planning Commission
and City Council will consider is whether the change in land use for these parcels will impact
surrounding properties.
2. If it does not. do I need to aJ>J>ly and !!o throu!!h the process?
Not unless you wish to seek a different zoning classification. A commercial zoning designation
would not be applicable to your property based on the current industrial use.
3. How Ion!! will I be able to aJ>ply for rezonin!!?
A property owner is able to apply for rezoning for as long as they own the property.
Alternatively, if an applicant (such as Mills Properties, Inc.) chooses to apply for rezoning for a
property they do not own, they must have the property owners consent to seek the rezoning. That
is what has occurred in this circumstance.
4. If I rezone to a commercial zonin!! will my taxes !!o up?
.
That is a question for the County Assessor. The use of the building and property typically
determines the classification of a property for tax purposes. However, the introduction of a
commercial facility into the area may have the affect of increasing property values, and as a
result, increasing taxes in the area.
Monticello City Hall. 505 Walnut Street. Suite 1. Monticello, MN 55362-8831. (763) 295-2711 . Fax (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello. MN 55362. (763) 295-3170 . Fax (763) 271-3272
.
Mr. Don Tomann
May 24th, 2007
Page 3
5. If I do not apply ril!ht away will my taxes l!0 up?
As stated earlier, you do not need to apply for rezoning. Unless a formal application is made,
UMC's zoning classification will remain I-IA. The land use designation as industrial will also
remain industrial, unless a formal application is made to change the designation.
Again, taxes are based on your building and property valuations, not necessarily on a zoning
designation.
6. If I do not apply ril!ht away then can I be assured that I will be able to chanl!e at anytime?
Meaninl!. will we be l!randfathered in automatically by a future CouncilS. 10. IS. 20 years
from now and so on? Or am I left to deal with that alone in the future?
.
As stated in item 3, a property owner may request rezoning at anytime. That right is governed by
Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 (attached for reference). In response to "grandfathering", if the
2007 Comprehensive Plan would designate this area as commercial (which would require a 2/3
vote of the Council to change), your industrial use would be grandfathered in for as long as the
facility continues to operate in its current state. Future expansions would be considered
separately.
7. We built a new buildinl! in Monticello and moved to Monticello in AUl!ust of 2003. There
was no disclosure of a rezoninl! at that time. Why. as a company that would be directly
impacted. were we not consulted or invited to participate in a contract discussion between
the City and other land owners with rel!ard to the rezoninl!. and the impacts to surroundinl!
people and our property ril!hts?
The current request for rezoning was made on March I, 2007. Prior to that, no official request for
rezoning was received. With regard to a neighborhood meeting on property rights, the public
hearing is to serve as such a forum. Public hearings on rezoning requests are required and can
only be set after the time of an application. Without a formal request for rezoning, the City
cannot presume the intentions of a property owner. Only by formal request can the City hold a
public hearing. It is the entire body of Monticello citizens who retain the right for a public forum
at which these items are discussed. Rezoning requests and the input regarding them are not
private negotiations.
Although the City entered into an agreement stipulating that it may at some future point consider
rezoning, no official request to rezone was made at the time the agreement was executed.
Regarding the assessment agreement between the subject property owner and the City, terms of
the agreement were negotiated between the City and property owner. The final agreement was
presented, discussed, and approved in a public forum regarding the interchange assessments. The
hearing of assessments followed the statutorily required process.
. Regarding your comments as related to Chelsea Road, the reconstruction of any road is related to
development. In this case, the reconstruction of Chelsea Road is coinciding with the potential for
development as a direct result of the CSAH 18/1-94 interchange project.
.
.
.
Mr. Don Tomann
May 24th, 2007
Page 3
To support the interchange project and future development in the area, Chelsea Road is being
reconstructed as a fully functional urban section. This has been planned since the late 1970' s. Please see
the attached memo for reference.
In relationship to holding off on Chelsea Road, the reconstruction is a function of future development in
this area, which includes previously zoned industrial and commercial property. Regardless of whether the
Mills request is approved, the reconstruction of Chelsea to an urban section would be recommended by
staff. The route is a major east-west collector for the city and will need to serve as an urban section.
The other items you referenced in your letter directly relate to negotiated items for assessment purposes in
relationship to the interchange project. Again, the agreement was part of a public forum regarding the
interchange assessments.
I hope that this information serves to clarify the process for rezoning as related to this request. I certainly
understand and appreciate your concerns. City staff has worked diligently to present a balanced report
regarding this request. It is now in the Planning Commission and City Council's hands as part of a public
process.
If you have further questions related to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. I would
encourage you to attend the Tuesday, June 5th Planning Commission meeting to further address your
concerns.
Sincerely,
Jeff O'Neill
City Administrator
c: Monticello City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
Ollie Koropchak, Economic Development Director
Angela Schumann, Community Development Coordinator
Stephen Grittman, NAC
.
(l\\1.. e~.mc
IO~wl',j.-.
2021 East Henne()in Avenue:
Minneapolis. MN 55413
612.331-8660
fAXJ31-J806
€!,
October 17, 1989
Engineers
Surveyors
Planners
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
.
Re: Oakwood Industrial Park Street Construction
Dear Mayor and Council:
It was brought to my attention following the last Council Meeting on
October 10, 1989, that certain property owners in the Oakwood Industrial
Park questioned the assessment for the bituminous overlay work done this
past summer in the area. It was stated that in 1977/78 when Chelsea Road
was first constructed that the original design was for a 9 ton roadway
and why wasn't this accomplished back then.
I beg to differ with the statement and these same remarks were disputed
by me at the time this overlay project was proposed in April of this
year.
Some of you may recall that in April 1977, I prepared a Feasibility
Report and Estimate of Cost for Publ ic Improvement Project No. 77-1 on
Chelsea Road from County Road 117 to Fallon Avenue, and on Thomas Park
Drive and also on County Road 117 to Highway 25. This improvement
consisting of sanitary sewer, watermain, street paving and storm sewer
were the initial utilities to service Oakwood Industrial Park and the
O.A.A. area to the south. This work was estimated at $717,000 in the
afore mention Feasibility Report and is shown on Page 4 and Exhibits 1
through 4 of this report. The improvement called for permanent streets
consisting of a 52 fn<1l width paving with curb and gutter along with a
storm sewer as snown in Exhibits 3 and 4. The estimated cost of this
street paving and storm sewer was $343,000 plus 20% indirect cost
totalling $412,000, see Page 4 of report. The City Council at that time
had no stormwater assessment pol icy other than 100% assessment against
benefitting property or through advalorem taxes.
Following the presentation of this report and subsequent Public Hearing
on Improvement 77-1, the City Council opted to delete the permanent
street pavi ng and storm sewer and just construct a gravel roadway on
Chel sea Road and Thomas Park Drive. At the August 8, 1977 Council
Meeting the City Council approved OSH's plans and specifications for
Project 77-1 consisting of sanitary sewer, watermain and the gravel
street servicing on Chelsea Road including a bituminous overlay on County
Road 117 from Highway 25 to Chelsea Road. On September 8. 1977 we
received bids for Project 77-1. Fourteen bids were received with Arcon
Construction being awarded the contract. The bids as received contained
.
(i)
.
.
items for street construction, grading, ditch work and restoration was in
the amount of $54,400 as compared to $343,000 for street paving, curb and
gutter, and storm sewer in the original Feasibility Report. The contract
as 1 et was for only gravel surfacing of Che1 sea Road and Thomas Park
Drive and a bituminous overlay on County Road 117. This would indicate
that the City Council and property owners of the Industrial Park had no
intent i on of construct i ng an urban type paved industrial roadway on
Chelsea Road much 1es~ a 9 ton rated roadway.
Following the award of the bid in September 1977 and based on the
favorable unit prices received from Arcon Construction, the City Council
asked OSH to prepare plans and specifications for blacktopping Chelsea
Road and Thomas Park Drive as a rural roadway. On November 10, 1977 I
presented the City Council with this information and recommended that the
work be done as a change order to the contract based on a 7 ton design.
See the typical street sections for Change Order No. 1 and my letter of
November 10, 1977 included herein.
Being that the City Council opted to go with a rural roadway design with
ditches and no storm sewer, it was further recommended that we pursue
stage road construction in this area and in the future consider urban
roads as development dictates. This was agreed to by the City Council.
Therefore, Chel sea Road was designed as 7 ton with a 40 foot width with
10 foot shoulders. fn the future to achieve a then 9 ton design, now a
10 ton, we would place curb and gutter at the edges of the existing '40
foot width and overlay with 2 inches of blacktop to end up with a State
Aid street design 44 feet wide. This was accomplished this past year
except for the curb and gutter, as a rural roadway design of 10 ton with
existing drainage ditches.
In closing, f believe the City wisely and prudently constructed Chelsea
Road 11 years ago as a 7 ton roadway util izing over 1/2 its useful 1 He
when development was minimal and then constructing a 10 ton roadway today
when development is occurring. likewise Dundas Road was constructed in
the same manner starting in 1979.
I trust this information will refresh the memories of those of us working
with the City in 1977 and will also be a benefit to others on how this
matter was planned and handled. '
If you have any questions in this regard, please let me know.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHElEN-MAYERON
ASSOCIATES, INC.
(t~
John P. Bada1ich, P.E.
City Engineer
.
JPB/cmw
10/89-74
Enclosures
@
.
5'/~Of"&~
10 t--(COYlt-.
,
Doc. No. A 964085
Return to:
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street #1
Monticello, MN 55313
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Certified Filed and/or Recorded on
06-21-2005 at 12:32
Check#: Fee: $19.50
PaymerTl Code 04
Add!. Fee
Larry A. Unger, County Recorder
.
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
(SW Quadrant of I-94/CSAH 18)
THIS ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is executed thi~ay of
m ~ ,2005, by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Minnesota
municipal rporatlon ("CIty") and MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC., a Minnesota
corporation ("Owner").
RECITALS
A. Owner is the owner of certain parcels of real property situated in Wright County,
Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (referred to as the "Subject
Property") .
B. City is considering whether to order City Project No. 2004-1 C, (C.S.A.H. 18/1-94
Interchange and Related Improvements) (hereinafter "Project").
C. City and Owner desire to establish the amount that the Subject Property will be
assessed for the Project.
D. City will be relying on this Agreement in making its final decisions to order and
proceed with the construction of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and in consideration of
the mutual promises and covenants and obligations herein set forth, as follows:
I. Special Benefit. Owner acknowledges that the Subject Property receives a special
benefit from the Project.
.
2. Assessment Amount. The Subject Property will be assessed a total of
$2,391,006.00 for the Project pursuant to Minn. Stat. 429.011, et. seq. The assessment will be
deferred pursuant to Section 5 herein. The assessment is also subject to increase pursuant to
115394
1
..
.
.
Section 6 herein.
3. Allocation. The total assessment will be allocated to the following portions of the
Subject Property as more fully described on Exhibit "A" and shown on the map attached hereto
as Exhibit "B":
a $738,966.00 - north of Chelsea Road (adjacent to CSAH 18);
-12.1174 ACS./527,833 Sq. Ft. @$1.40/Sq. Ft.
b. $1,132,559.00-north of Chelsea Road;
-26.0000 ACS./I,132,559 Sq. Ft. @$1.00/Sq.Ft.
c. $383,427.00 - south of Chelsea Road;
-32.601 ACS./I,420,100 Sq. Ft. @$0.27/Sq. Ft.
d. $85,269.00 - Lot 2, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 6th Addition; and
-7.50 ACS.l315,811 Sq. Ft. @$0.27/Sq. Ft.
e. $50,785.00 - Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition.
-3.151 ACS.l137,257 Sq. Ft. @$0.37/Sq. Ft.
The square footage calculations for each portion are estimated and included for
illustrative purposes. The total assessment for each portion shall be the stated total dollar amount
regardless of actual square footage.
4. Assessment Adopted. The assessment is deemed adopted on the date this
Agreement is signed by the parties.
5. Deferral of Assessments.
a. Subject to the terms of this Section and all other terms of this Agreement, the
assessment will be deferred without interest until January], 2011 at which time
the assessment will then be payable over ten (10) years, including interest
commencing January 1,2011 at the rate of four percent (4%) per annum simple
interest computed on the unpaid balance with the first installment collectable as
part ofthe payable 2012 taxes.
b.
If the property is subdivided prior to January I, 2011, the assessment will be
equitably apportioned to individual lots on a square footage basis in accordance
with Minn. Stat. ~429.071, giving due consideration to any portions of the
property which may be undevelopable or subject to ponding or other
infrastructure requirements. In recognition of the fact that certain parts of the
"Subject Property" may benefit more from the Project than others, the City will
allocate a greater proportion of the assessment to certain lots as they develop upon
request of Owner.
115394
2
.
c. As each subdivided lot is either sold or developed, whichever occurs first, the
apportioned assessment for the lot will then be payable over ten (10) years,
including interest commencing July 1 of the year the property is sold or develops,
with the first installment collectable as part of the following years payable taxes
(or the next year if the transaction occurs to late in year to certify assessments to
county). A lot is "developed" when a building permit is issued.
d. The assessments on all lots not sold or developed by January 1, 2011 shall then be
payable over ten (10) years, including interest at the rate of four percent (4%)
simple interest computed on the unpaid balance commencing January 1, 2011,
with the first installment collectable as part of payable 2011 taxes (or 2012 year if
it is to late in the year to certify the assessment to county for 2011).
e. If the Project and the future Chelsea Road project are not fully completed and
finally accepted by the City by December 31,2008, the January 1, 2011 date for
the end of the deferrals will be extended by one year for each year beyond 2008
that the Projects are not completed.
.
6. Additional Assessment. Any part of the Subject Property located south of
Chelsea Road described in Paragraphs 3.c., 3.d., and 3.e. herein, which is rezoned for retail use at
the time it develops shall pay an additional assessment for the Project ofFifty Cents ($.50) per
square foot of the net acreage of the property rezoned for retail use.
7. Waiver. Owner hereby waives unconditionally all procedural and substantive
objections to the Assessment in the amounts set forth herein, including, but not limited to, any
rights of Owner to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment does not constitute a
special benefit or that the amount of the assessment exceeds the special benefit to the Subject
Property. The Owner further waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes S 429.081 or other laws.
8. Conveyance of Easements. Owner will convey to the City at no cost
contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, the temporary and permanent
easements relating to the future Chelsea Road Project, trail, and trunk sanitary sewer, all of
which are described on Exhibit "c" hereto. The easements shall include the necessary consents
from any mortgagee or other party having an interest in the easement area.
9. No Additional Assessments for Chelsea Road or Fallon A venue. The Subject
Property will not be further assessed for the projected 2006 Chelsea Road reconstruction project,
the proposed future improvements to Fallon Avenue, the Fallon Avenue Overpass or the
proposed traffic signal light at the intersection of C.S .A.H. 18 and School Boulevard.
.
10. Relocation of Pond. The temporary storm water pond located on the north side of
Chelsea Road will be relocated to the City drainage easements located west of this site. The City
will release the easement for the temporary storm water pond.
11.
"School Pond" Credits. The storm water ponding credits for what is known as the
115394
3
.
"School Pond" will be released by Owner, and Owner waives the requirement that the School
District complete the grading of the School Pond to the agreed-upon capacity.
12. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Owner may initiate a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of all or a portion of the Subject Property located
north of Chelsea Road to a B-4 zoning district (which includes any other future zoning district
established by the City allowing equivalent uses) at any time during the term of this Agreement.
The proportioned assessment will be abated for any portion of the Subject Property located north
of Chelsea Road for which Owner has made such a formal application for rezoning that has not
been rezoned to B-4 by the City prior to the end of the term of this Agreement. In addition to
such abatement, the City will make a payment to Owner in the amount of $100,000.00 (or a
prorata portion of the $100,000.00 based upon the portion of the Subject Property not rezoned)
within thirty (30) days after the City's failure to rezone the property within the time frame set
forth herein and after formal application by Owner. The assessment will also be abated on any
portion of the Subject Property that during the term of this Agreement, the City rezones (after
rezoning to B-4) other than at Owner's request, to a zoning designation other than B-4.
.
13. Chelsea Road Design. City will cooperate with Owner on the design of Chelsea
Road in order to make sure service stubs and curb cuts are reasonably located to accommodate
future development. The City's fmal design of the proposed improvements will be provided to
Owner for its review on or before 20 days prior to the proposed bid date.
14. Trunk Fees. The City's per acre charges for trunk sanitary sewer, trunk water
charges and trunk storm sewer will not increase during the term of this Agreement by more than
two percent (2%) per year from the year 2005 rates for any portion ofthe Subject Property that is
rezoned to B-4 or a future district allowing equivalent uses. The rates will not increase from the
2005 rates during the term of this Agreement for any portion of the Subject Property zoned
Industrial. The 2005 acreage rates are $2,228.00 for trunk sanitary sewer, $1,752.00 for trunk
water, $6,436.00 for trunk storm sewer (industrial) and $6,804.00 for trunk storm sewer
(commercial).
IS. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate on January I, 2011. The
( term of the Agreement will be extended to correspond to any extension of the January 1, 2011
date pursuant to Section 5.e. herein. As to any portion of the Subject Property that has not been
rezoned to B-4 (or future district allowing equivalent uses) as requested by formal application by
Owner, the termination date will be the earlier often (10) years from the Project and Chelsea
Road completion date or the rezoning to B-4 of the Property as requested by Owner.
16. Recording. This Agreement will be recorded against the Subject Property and
will run with the land and bind Owner's successors and assigns.
.
17. Proiect Contingencv. This Agreement is contingent upon the City ordering and
constructing the Project. Nothing herein obligates the City to do the Project. JfProject is not
ordered and constructed, Owner's obligations under this Agreement are terminated.
115394
4
.
.
.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
By:
By:
. Rick W olfsteller, ity Administrator
MONTICELLO INDUSTR L PARK, INC.
~
By:
By:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~Dj-JI.. day of
_1YLc~ ,2005, by Clint Herbst and by Rick Wolfsteller, respectively the Mayor and
City Admr . strator of the City ofMonticeJlo, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of
the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
~H.Jtv ~ -t\1J ltb~
Notary Public "'- 0
115394
5
Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.355
Minnesota Statutes 2005, Table of Chapters
.e of contents for Chapter 462
Page 1 ofl
lONCbYH-,
462.355 Adopt, amend comprehensive plan; interim
ordinance.
Subdivision 1. Preparation and review. The planning
agency shall prepare the comprehensive municipal plan. In
discharging this duty the planning agency shall consult with and
coordinate the planning activities of other departments and
agencies of the municipality to insure conformity with and to
assist in the development of the comprehensive municipal plan.
In its planning activities the planning agency shall take due
cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of
government and other affected public agencies. The planning
agency shall periodically review the plan and recommend
amendments whenever necessary.
Subd. la. Update by metropolitan municipalities.
Each municipality in the metropolitan area, as defined in
section 473.121, subdivision 2, shall review and update its
comprehensive plan and fiscal devices and official controls as
provided in section 473.864, subdivision 2.
Subd. 2. Procedure to adopt, amend. The planning
lency may, unless otherwise provided by charter or ordinance
sistent with the municipal charter, recommend to the
erning body the adoption and amendment from time to time of a
comprehensive municipal plan. The plan may be prepared and
adopted in sections, each of which relates to a major subject of
the plan or to a major geographical section of the
municipality. The governing body may propose the comprehensive
municipal plan and amendments to it by resolution submitted to
the planning agency. Before adopting the comprehensive
municipal plan or any section or amend~ent of the plan, the
planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon.
A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be
published once in the official newspaper of the municipality at
least ten days before the day of the hearing.
Subd. 3. Adoption by governing body. A proposed
comprehensive plan or an amendment to it may not be acted upon
by the governing body until it has received the recommendation
of the planning agency or until 60 days have elapsed from the
date an amendment proposed by the governing body has been
submitted to the planning agency for its recommendation. Unless
otherwise provided by charter, the governing body may by
resolution by a two-thirds vote of all of its members adopt and
amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof as the official
municipal plan upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed
by ordinance.
.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/data/revisor/ statutesI2005/462/3 55 .html
5/2412007
Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.357
Minnesota Statutes 2005. Table of Chapters
.e of contents for Chapter 462
Page I ofl
462.357 Official controls:
zoning ordinance.
Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose
of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general
welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's
surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface
areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation,
number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the
percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and
other open spaces, the density and distribution of population,
the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry,
residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and
the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, ~ecreation,
agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water sUpply
conservation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in sections
l03F.20l to l03F.22l, access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems as defined in section 216C.06, flood control or other
purposes, and may establish standards and procedures regulating
such uses. To accomplish these purposes, official controls may
include provision for purchase of development rights by the
governing body in the form of conservation easements under
chapter 84C in areas where the governing body considers
ieservation desirable and the transfer of development rights
rn those areas to areas the governing body considers more
ropriate for development. No regulation may prohibit earth
sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06,
subdivision 14, relocated residential buildings, or manufactured
homes built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that
comply with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to
this section. The regulations may divide the surface, above
surface, and subsurface areas of the municipality into districts
or zones of suitable numbers, shape, and area. The regulations
shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings,
structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout
such district, but the regulations in one district may differ
from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these
regulations shall be known as the zoning ordinance and shall
consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the
application of its zoning regulations to unincorporated
territory located within two miles of its limits in any
direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning
regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous
municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each
is authorized to control the zoning of land on its side of a
line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities
unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning
regulations. Any city may thereafter enforce such regulations
in the area to the same extent as if such property were situated
within its corporate limits, until the county or town board
adopts a comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area.
.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/data/revisor/statutes/2005/462/357.html
5/24/2007
Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.357
Page 1 of 1
Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or
Indment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has
n held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing
dy. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing
shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality
at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an
amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an
area of five acres or le88, a similar notice shall be mailed at
least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of
affected property and property situated wholly or partly within
350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For
the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for
mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine
the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a
list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent
shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made
a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give
mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the
notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona
fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made.
Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning
ordinance may be initiated by the governing body, the planning
agency, or by petition of affected property owners as defined in
the zoning ordinance. An amendment not initiated by the
planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency, if
there is one, for study and report and may not be acted upon by
the governing body until it has received the recommendation of
<< planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days
e elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without
report by the planning agency.
.
http://www.revisor.1eg.state.mn.us/data/revisor/ statutes/2005/ 462/357 .html
5/24/2007
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/0512007
.
11. Public Hearin - Consideration of a r uest for Com rehensive Plan
Amendment to re-desilmate industrial land use to commercial land use in the
area north of Chelsea Road East and a request for Rezoninl!: from I-IA (Lil!:ht
Industrial) to B-3 (Hil!:hwav Business. Applicant: Mills Fleet Farm (NAC).
BACKGROUND
Mills Fleet Farm has submitted an application for a request to rezone a parcel on the
north side of Chelsea Road East from I-lA, Light Industrial, to B-3, Highway
Business. The applicant is also requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the land use guide plan from Industrial to Commercial. The subject is 2.38
acres in size. The above applications are requested to accommodate a 4,378 square
foot convenience store, a motor fuel station, and a car wash approximately 4,750
square feet in area.
A request is also being considered as part of a separate application to rezone a 33.66
acre parcel directly south of the subject site from I-IA to B-4, Regional Business.
This request is to accommodate a Mills Fleet Farm retail building.
.
The subject application is for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning on
the north side of Chelsea Road only. If the City recommends approval of the request,
other land use approvals would be required. To accommodate the use the applicant
shall also be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the Motor Fuel
Station/Convenience store, a Conditional Use Permit for the Car Wash, a Conditional
Use Permit for a Comprehensive Sign Plan, and Preliminary Plat approval. All
additional approvals must be processed as separate applications and evaluated on
their own merit.
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is currently guided for industrial land use in
the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1996. The policies of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding Economic Development are as follows:
. The purpose of the City's economic development activities is to broaden the City's
tax base.
. Monticello will target high quality businesses for its economic development
programs.
.
In specific reference to the subject site, the Development framework portion of the
Comprehensive Plan states that "industrial areas in the southeast will infill, with a
continued focus on higher quality light industry near the school campus and with
exposure to the interstate." A Comprehensive Plan update is currently underway. The
Comprehensive Plan Task Force has considered the issues of a potential land use
change in the subject area. The Task Force has been general supportive of
commercial land uses on the north side of Chelsea Road, though no official consensus
has been formed.
1
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
According to the current Comprehensive Plan, the City has 199 acres of I-I (light
industrial) zoned land, comprising 5.7 percent of the total area of the City. A more
recent calculation performed by City Staff found that the City currently has
approximately 135.5 total acres of industrial land (I-I, 1-2, and I-lA) available.
Specifically within the Monticello Commerce Center, 67.5 acres of industrial zoned
are available. The current Comprehensive Plan also states that, at the time of
adoption, 307 acres of B-3 zoned land was available in the City.
Traffic. Based on information provided in the Trip Generation Manual produced by
the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the proposed convenience store/motor fuel station
use will produce an average of3,702 trips per day on weekdays and 5,758 trips on
weekends. The proposed automatic car wash is expected to produce an average of 67
trips per day on weekdays and weekends.
.
All development related traffic will access Chelsea Road to enter and exit the site.
The existing corridor is a two-lane facility. However, Chelsea Road is planned for
reconstruction in 2007 from Fallon Avenue to CSAH 18 as a three-lane facility.
Chelsea Road is currently a local street, but is planned as a major collector with
reconstruction. It currently carries an estimated 3,650 vehicles per day. The future
analysis of Chelsea Road estimates that the proposed convenience store and accessory
uses will generate 3,769 trips each weekday and 5,825 trips each weekend day. The
amount of traffic expected to be generated by the site can be accommodated by
Chelsea Road.
History. In the past, the City has rezoned property from industrial land use
designations to commercial land use designations on numerous occasions. Examples
of such rezoning include rezoning ofthe 74 Hoglund property from 1-2, Heavy
Industrial to B-4, Regional Business and PS, Public/Semi-Public and rezoning the 30
acre Monticello Marketplace site from I-I A, Light Industrial to B-4, Regional
Business.
ANALYSIS
In the following sections, information relating to both support of the re-designation to
commercial and support of maintaining the current industrial designation are
discussed.
A. The following is a summary of factors that support this request for rezoning
to commercial as an appropriate use for the site. These issues are intended to
serve as a guide for the City in evaluating the requests.
.
1. Location of industrial with current transportation facilities and development
pattern.
2
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
The site is located south ofI-94, and west ofCSAH 18. Due to the construction of
the CSAH 18 interchange, the nature of the Chelsea Road area is shifting to a high
traffic area which is easily accessible from Interstate 94. This interchange was not in
place at the time the Monticello Commerce Center industrial park was developed, or
at the time the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The interchange has
encouraged commercial development on the north side ofInterstate 94, including the
Union Crossings Development, which contains Target and Home Depot.
In that regard, staff believes it is important for the City to consider what land use
designation would have been deemed the highest and best use of the land had the
interchange been present prior to development. The subject site, as well as the
remaining vacant land on the north side of Chelsea Road, provides direct freeway
exposure and accessibility. The City has a limited amount of land abutting Interstate
94 available, and should carefully consider what type of development they would like
visible from the freeway.
.
Commercial and industrial uses tend to have different characteristics and aesthetics.
Industrial uses are more inclined to utilize outdoor storage, generate noise, and
construct buildings that hold functionality as a top priority, rather than aesthetics.
Commercial uses are less intense and typically more aesthetically pleasing. In that
regard, the City should consider which land use designation is more appropriate for
freeway exposure and access.
2. The subject site is consistent with classic commercial land use traits.
The subject site is bordered by Interstate 94 to the north, vacant I-IA land within the
Monticello Commerce Center to the east and south, and an I-I A use to the west. The
subject site has direct freeway exposure and convenient freeway access. The
interchange has encouraged commercial development on the north side of Interstate
94, including the Union Crossings Development, which contains Target and Home
Depot. The subject site, as well as other vacant land on the north side of Chelsea
Road, contains many similarities to the commercial development on the north side of
1-94.
Due to the direct freeway exposure and access and the layout of the site, this and
neighboring parcels north of Chelsea Road East are consistent with classic
commercial land use traits. Without presupposing the City's intent, widely accepted
planning precepts suggest that the land on the north side of Chelsea Road is
characteristic of a commercial land use designation.
3. Surrounding land uses are not exclusively industrial.
.
The site is primarily surrounded by vacant land. As stated above, the site is bordered
by vacant I-IAland to the east and south and Interstate 94 to the north. The only
occupied land bordering the site is the existing KalTec industrial use to the west,
zoned I-IA. Any decision to change the land use of the subject site to commercial
3
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
would therefore not be a spot-zone situation. It should also be noted that the land east
of the site on Chelsea Road, adjacent to the interchange, is zoned B-2, Limited
Business. Introducing commercial zoning on the north side of Chelsea at this location
may essentially encourage additional rezoning requests for the remaining vacant land
to the east of the site, on the north side of Chelsea Road.
B. The following is a summary of factors that support maintaining the Light
Industrial land use designation on the site. Again, these issues are intended to
serve as a guide the City in determining whether the requested commercial land use
designation is appropriate or inappropriate for the site.
1. An increase in traffic on Chelsea Road generated by a commercial use.
As indicated above, the number of trips per day has been estimated for the potential
commercial user on the subject 2.38 acre site. The proposed convenience store user,
along with accessory uses, is expected to generate 3,769 trips each weekday and
5,825 trips each weekend day.
.
If the site were to remain industrial, the expected trip generation is 124 trips on
weekdays and 16 trips per day on weekends. Due to the size ofthe site, the traffic
generated by either a light industrial user or a commercial user would be minimal. A
commercial user would increase the amount of traffic generated from the site by
3,645 trips on weekdays and 5,809 trips on weekends. However, Chelsea Road is
designed to support traffic of either level.
2. Conflicting traffic patterns between retail commercial users and industrial
users.
Commonly held planning precepts recognize a conflict between commercial retail
traffic and industrial, or truck, traffic. Mixing industrial truck traffic and retail traffic
creates conflicts for both. Retail traffic may impede truck traffic due to the nature of
turning movements, time and distance necessary for acceleration, and the general
number ofretail vehicles expected on Chelsea Road each day. Likewise, wide
turning movements and slow acceleration of industrial truck traffic may hinder retail
traffic.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Regarding the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of a 2.38
acre parcel on the north side of Chelsea Road East, the City has the following options:
.
I. Motion to recommend denial of the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning from I-IA to B-3 based on a finding that the
existing zoning of the site is the highest and best use of the land and the basis
for the current land use designation is still valid.
4
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/0512007
.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to accommodate Mills Fleet Farm motor fuel
station and accessory uses, based on a finding that the proposed land use is
compatible with the adjacent industrial land use designation, and will not have
a detrimental affect on surrounding properties.
3. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning from I-IA to PUD, based on a finding that the
proposed land use is compatible with the adjacent industrial land use
designation, and will not have a detrimental affect on surrounding properties.
.
Staff also offers the option of rezoning the site to PUD, Planned Unit Development,
instead of the requested B-3 designation. Rezoning the property to PUD allows for
commercial land uses, but can require them in a manner that minimizes negative
aspects of commercial uses in the area by requiring strict performance standards. A
PUD zoning designation for the 2.38 acre site would allow for a more extensive
review process, allowing the City more discretion over any future development. The
applicant would also be required to comply with the general PUD guidelines, which
allow for flexibility in performance standards with the understanding that the
development will be held to higher standards of site and building design than would
ordinarily be required.
The City currently allows PUD via the Conditional Use Permit process, and therefore
an ordinance amendment would be required to establish a PUD district. The
ordinance amendment would also allow the City to set goals and parameters for
acceptable development, architectural controls, and specific uses in the PUD District.
This district may be formulated to allow for certain retail commercial users, without
allowing for a gas station use.
CONCLUSION
Mills Fleet Farm has submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Rezoning of a 2.38 acre parcel on the north side of Chelsea Road East. The City's
current long range land use plan identifies the subject site for industrial land uses.
Regarding this request, staff offers the above alternative actions.
If the City chooses Alternative 1, to deny the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning of a 2.38 acre parcel within the Monticello Commerce
Center, this action may be supported by the following findings:
.
1. The subject site is currently designated for industrial land uses in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for higher quality light
industry near the school campus and with exposure to the interstate.
2. The introduction of commercial land use will be detrimental to the existing
industrial properties, and may affect the future value of these properties.
5
Planning Connnission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
3. The existing industrial use is the highest and best use of the land.
If the City chooses to approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
re-designate the land from industrial to commercial, and a request for rezoning from
I-IA to B-3 (or PUD), this recommendation for approval may be supported with the
following findings:
I. The subject site is consistent with classic commercial land use characteristics.
2. The existing surrounding land uses are not exclusively industrial.
3. The City has a limited amount ~f land available with direct freeway exposure,
and believes that the highest an~ best use of this land is commercial.
4. The construction ofthe CSAH 18 interchange has changed the nature of the
area, adding freeway access and higher traffic volumes. With that in mind,
the City believes the highest and best use of the land is commercial.
.
5. The increased traffic on Chelsea Road will not have a detrimental effect on
existing properties.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Aerial Image
Applicant Narrative
Monticello Zoning Ordinance - B-3 (Highway Business) District
* Exhibits from Item 10 also relevant to review of this item.
.
6
.. Figure 3. 2006 Aerial Photograph
Mills Fleet Farm EAW
__ Monticello, MN
Legend 0
D Mills Fleet Farm EAW
250
N ...
5?~eet W~E W$8
S .t~1iI<,
//
/./
.
.
/'
..... I
llr?;
NARRATIVE - Chelsea Road Development
Mills Properties Inc. has a purchase agreement with Monticello industrial Park Inc. to
purchase approximately 33 acres described as follows:
That part of lots 11, 18 and 19 Auditors Subdivision No. One lying East of
Monticello Commerce Center First Addition, Monticello Commerce Center
Third Addition and Monticello Commerce Center Fifth Addition and lying
West of Monticello Commerce Center Sixth Addition being part of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25, Wright
County, Minnesota which lies southwesterly of the following described
line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter;
thence on an assumed bearing of South 1 degree 14 minutes 38 seconds
West along the West line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 708.88
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 63
degrees 32 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 4016.29 feet and
there terminating.
Although zoned industrial (1-1A), Mills Properties Inc. requests that it be rezoned
to Regional Business District (B-4) so they can construct a Mills Fleet Farm retail
facility with a convenience storel fuel station and an automatic car wash facility.
A change in the comprehensive plan from industrial (I) to commercial (C) is also
required as part of the City ordinances.
The retail facility would be approximately 235,500 sf in size. It would house the retail
floor, the accompanying warehouse and receiving, and the automotive repair. In
addition, there would be an enclosed yard area that is screened from the neighbors that
is set up to display gardening materials and supplies, yard goods, farm supplies, and
overstock of items that can be stored outside. The loading docks and waste receptacles
would also be in this area away from the general public eye. Hours of operation are
typically 8:00 am to 9:00 pm.
The convenience store and fuel station is planned to be about 4,200 sf with 23 fueling
points, including all grades of fuel, diesel fuel and kerosene. Hours of operation are
typically 6:00 am to 10:00 pm
A multi-bay car wash is also proposed. It is automatic with no attendants present at the
site except those responsible through the convenience store. There are 4 bays planned
with 2 being for touch less washes and 2 being brush or soft-gloss washes. Hours of
operation are typically 24 hours per day.
.
.
.
May 7,2007
Angela Schumann
Community Development Coordinator
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362-8831
RECEIVED
MAn 0 2lMI1
Re: Mills Properties Inc.
Mills Fleet Farm - Monticello, MN
WSN 0115B0070.000
Applications
Dear Ms. Schumann:
Enclosed please find our submittal for the above referenced project. Included are the
application form, a check in the amount of $500.00, four (4) copies (via UPS ovemight) of the
preliminary plat, site plans, utility plans, floor plans for all buildings, elevations for all buildings
and typical signage. We are also enclosing storm water runoff calculations to the existing
ponds. The number of copies is based on our discussion with Mr. O'Neill but should you require
or desire more, please advise. Under separate cover, we will be providing the landscape plan
you advised was missing.
We understand that the zoning for the parcels will not be considered until June 5, 2007, and if
not approved, this application and these documents will not be acted upon. Also, even though
we do not intend to begin construction at this time, our purpose of this submittal is to gain
approval of the proposed project prior to acquisition of the property. We request that you review
this application and advise of approval or any required changes to gain approval in order to
provide our client with sufficient comfort that the project is acceptable to the City of Monticello.
In particular, we request that you advise on the following items:
1. Preliminary Plat - Please schedule for the Planning Commission meeting on June 5,
2007.
2. Rezoning from 1-1A to B-3 PUD - As we understand the ordinance, our uses will only
be permitted in the B-3 zone. Further, we understand that we will be working under a
PUD since portions of the project will be on both sides of Chelsea. Purchase of the
property is contingent on the proper zoning and approvals for our project.
3. Signage - Typical signage has been provided on sheet architectural sheet 11.
4. Site Plans - This would include layout, grading, drainage and utilities. These are not
intended to be complete construction documents. I am sure you understand the desire
to provide the necessary documents for approval but as little as possible prior to
purchase of the property. Please review the documents as outlined above. The
landscape plan will be submitted to you prior to May 15, 2007 as requested.
5. Conditional Use Permit - The application includes applying for the PUD conditional
use permits. Our understanding is that your approval of our plan will ultimately
constitute a PUD for this specific project that will include all uses proposed at the site.
M:\0115B0070-Monticello\0115B0070.000-New Store\Correspondence\Permits\Zoning Change\5-5-07 Submittal\Submittal Letter 5-7-2007.doc
7804 Industrial Park Road _ PO Box 2720 . Baxter, MN 56425-2720 . TEl: 218.829.5117 . FAX: 218.829.2517 . WEB: www.wsn-mn.com
ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURE
lAND SURVEYING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
.
Angela Schumann
May 7, 2007
Page 2
We have addressed the requirements as identified in the City of Monticello "Plan Requirements
and Design Guidelines" for the Preliminary Plat, Site Plan, Grading Plan and Utility Plan. The
following exceptions to that are noted:
1. Traffic - We are still waiting for the final EAW being prepared by WSB & Associates for
traffic impact in the area. From the EAW, the need for turn lanes will be determined
along with locations, lengths and ratio of tapers.
2. Storm Water - No pond calculations have been provided. There are two regional ponds
on site. Allowed volumes were provided by WSB & Associates. The storm water
calculations provided only include volumes routed to each pond. No dead or live storage
calculations have been provided.
3. Convenience Store - There was some discussion about routing the storm water across
the street into the existing pond as an environmental control due to the fuel station and
the possibility of a spill. We have discussed this with the owner and we are amenable to
that if you deem it necessary. We will increase the size of the pond as necessary to
accommodate the increased requirement.
We request that you make an initiai review to determine compliance with your submittal
requirements. If something is inadequate, not in compliance, or you desire something different,
we would like the opportunity to submit supplemental data prior to your Staff/Applicant
Application Review Meeting on May 29, 2007, so it is considered at that review meeting.
.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact myself or Chris Sonmor in our office.
Stewart C. Mills,
Henry C. Mills II
Ron Obeidzinski
.
.
.
.
llG
CHAPTER 13
"B-3" HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION:
13-1: P1rrpose
13-2: Permitted Uses
13-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
13-4: Conditional Uses
13-5: Interim Uses
13-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B-3," highway business, district is to provide for and
limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and
service activities.
13-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a "B-3" district:
[A] All permitted uses as allowed in a B-1 and B-2 district.
[B] Auto accessory store.
[C]
Commercial recreational uses.
[D] Motels, motor motels, and hotels provided that the lot area contains not less
than five hundred (500) square feet oflot area per unit.
[E] Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and off-sale liquor, provided that the
use is not located within 300 ft of a residential zone.
(#258,09/26/94)
[F] Private clubs or lodges serving food and beverages with use being restricted to
members and their guests. Adequate dining room, kitchen, and bar space must
be provided according to standards imposed upon similar unrestricted
customer operations. The serving of alcoholic beverages to members and their
guests shall be allowed, providing that such service is in compliance with
applicable federal, state, and municipal regulations. Offices of such use shall
be limited to no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the
building.
[G] Taxi terminals, stand, and offices.
[H] Small printing or publishing business employing six (6) or less persons.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/1
.
.
.
13-3:
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a
"B-3" district:
[A] All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a "B-2," limited business, district.
[B]
(#217,01/13/92)
Adult Use/Accessory
13-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "B-3" district:
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.)
[A] Drive-in and convenience food establishments provided that:
1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and
site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to
cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of lot.
2. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five
(5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3.
Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped
or covered.
4. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential
districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this
ordinance.
5. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curb not
less than six (6) inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade.
6. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of
conflict with through traffic movements, shall comply with Chapter 3,
Section 5, of this ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
7. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not
visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and
shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance.
8. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
9.
The entire area other than that occupied by buildings or structure or
plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and
drainage and which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall
be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/2
.
.
.
II.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[B] CARW ASHES (DRIVE THROUGH, MECHANICAL, AND SELF-
SERVICE) PROVIDED THAT:
1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and
site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to
cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of the lot.
2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that
number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30)
minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
3. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five
(5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped
or covered.
5.
Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of
abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall
be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which
is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not
visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and
shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance.
9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of
conflict with through traffic movement and shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall
be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance.
II. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
12.
The provisions of Chapter 22 ofthis ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/3
.
.
.
[C]
MOTOR FUEL ST A TlON.l1'OR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE
STORE, AUTO REPAIR-MINOR, AND TIRE AND BATTERY STORES
AND SERVICE PROVIDED THAT:
1. Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale of
motor fuels and/or oil incidental to the conduct of the use or business,
the standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor
fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are,
however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other
uses of the property.
2. The architectural appearance and functional plan ofthe building and
site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to
cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of the lot.
3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or
plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage
which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
4. A minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500)
square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150)
feet by one hundred thirty (13 0) feet.
5.
A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be
installed.
6. A curb not less than six (6) inches above grade shall separate the
public sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas.
7. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct
source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the
public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section
2 [H], ofthis ordinance.
8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be
installed.
9. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five
(5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 7 [G], of this ordinance.
10. Each light standard landscaped.
II.
Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of
abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with
through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3, Section 5, of
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/4
.
.
.
this ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
13.
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall
be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of
this ordinance.
14.
Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
15.
No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13,
Section 4, of this ordinance.
16.
Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in Chapter 13,
Section 4, be subject to a conditional use permit and be in compliance
with Chapter 13, Section 4 [F], of this ordinance.
17.
All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when
the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds
that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or
better by modifying the conditions.
18.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[D] New and used automobilellight truck sales and display provided that:
1. The minimum building size for any auto sales use shall comply with
the
following standards:
Parcel Size
Lot Coverage Percent* Minimum Building
Size*
Up to 2 acres
5% 2,500 square feet
10% 10,000 square feet
More than 2 acres to 4 acres
More than 4 acres 15%
*Whichever requires the larger building.
40,000 square feet
(#351, 8/14/00)
2. Outside sales and display areas are fenced or screened from view of
neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" district in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3.
All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences, and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H],
of this ordinance.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/5
.
.
.
[E]
[F]
4.
The outside sales and display area shall be hard surfaced.
5.
The outside sales and display area does not utilize parking spaces
which are required for conformance with this ordinance.
6. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with
through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3, Section 5, of
this ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
7. There is a minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred
(22,500) square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty
(150) feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet.
8. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be
installed.
9. All signing shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this
ordinance.
10. The provisions of Chapter 22 ofthis ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
Open and outdoor storage as a principal or accessory use provided that:
I. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or if abutting an "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this
ordinance.
5. Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this
ordinance.
6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal or accessory use and
including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided
that:
I. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/6
.
.
.
principal uses is limited to thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of
the principal use. This percentage may be increased as a condition of
the conditional use permit.
2.
Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring
residential uses or abutting "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3.
All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of
this ordinance.
4.
Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
5.
Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this
ordinance.
6.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[G] Accessory, enclosed retail, rental, or service activity other than that allowed as
a permitted use or conditional use within this section provided that:
1.
Such use is allowed as a permitted use in a "B-1" or "B-2" district.
2. Such use does not constitute more than thirty (30) percent of the lot
area and not more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use.
3. Adequate off-street parking and off-street loading in compliance with
the requirements of Chapter 3, Sections 5 and 6, of this ordinance is
provided.
4. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall
be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[H] Shopping Center.
[1] Animal Pet Clinics.
I. Annual inspection by City's health officer at owner's expense.
2.
All pets must be leashed.
3. Treatment to be limited to household pets.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/7
.
.
.
[J]
Pet hospitals with the following condition:
1. No outside pens or kennels.
2. Annual inspection by City Health Officer at owner's expense.
3. All animals must be leashed.
4. Treatment would be limited to small domesticated animals.
5.
No outside storage of carcasses.
(#364,9/10/01)
[K] Commercial storage contained entirely within a building.
[L] Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this
ordinance.
[M] Consignment auction sales and/or auction sales.
1. The architectural appearance and function plan of the building and site
shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause
impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within
a reasonable distance of the lot.
2.
At the boundaries of residential districts, a strip of not less than 5 feet
shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Any light standard islands and all islands in the parking lot shall be
landscaped or covered.
4. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential
districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 5 [G], ofthis
ordinance.
5. Parking areas and driveways shall comply with Chapter 3, Section 5
[D].
6. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of
conflict through traffic movements, shall comply with Chapter 3,
Section 5, of this ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
7.
All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not
visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and
shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance.
8.
The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/8
.
.
.
9.
All signing and information or visual communication devices shall be
in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9.
10. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
II. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when
the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds
that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or
better by modifYing the conditions.
12. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring
residential uses or abutting residential districts in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [G), of this ordinance.
13. Outside sales connected with the principal use is limited to 30% of the
gross floor area of the principal building. This percentage may be
increased as a condition ofthe conditional use permit.
14. Outside sales may not take up parking space as required for conformity
to the ordinance requirement.
15. No pets or livestock may be sold at this auction sales facility.
16.
Provisions must be made to control and reduce noise when adjacent to
a residential zoning district.
17. All outside storage shall be effectively screened from public view in
accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], and limited to 10% of the
gross floor area of the principal use building.
[N] Outdoor go-kart tracks provided that:
I. The proposed use must meet all conditions of Chapter 3, Section 4 [A).
2. The conditional use permit will be reviewed yearly to determine
whether or not it is compatible with neighboring properties and in
conformance with conditions of the conditional use.
3. A solid wood, six-foot high fence must be part ofthe screening
required when the adjacent property is residential.
4. For dust and noise (70DB at residential property line) must be
controlled at all times to the satisfaction ofthe City.
5.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[0] Day-care centers provided that:
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/9
.
.
.
1.
No overnight facilities are provided for children served and that said
children are delivered and removed daily.
2. An outdoor recreational facility shall be appropriately separated from
the parking lot and driving areas by a wood fence not less than 4 feet in
height or Council approved substitute, and shall be located continuous
to the day-care facility, and shall not be located in any yard abutting a
major thoroughfare, and shall not have an impervious surface for more
than one-half of the playground area, and shall extend at least 60 feet
from the wall of the building or to an adjacent property line, whichever
is less, or shall be bound on not more than two sides by parking and
driving areas. A minimum size of the outside recreational facility shall
be 2,000 sq. ft., or in the alternative 75 sq. ft. per child at licensed
capacity, whichever is the greater figure.
3. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of
Human Services and Department of Health, Public Welfare Manual
11-31-30 as adopted, amended, and/or changed, are satisfactorily met.
4. A written indication of preliminary, pending, or final license approval
from the regulatory agencies is supplied to the City of Monticello.
(#152,9/22/86)
[P]
Auto body shop repair provided that:
I. Door opening to service area garage must not face street frontage.
2. Vehicle storage area limited to 50% of floor space of the structure
housing the auto body shop.
3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside
or in vehicle storage area.
4. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to screen
the view of vehicles in storage from the outside. Enclosure shall
consist of a six-foot high, 100% opaque fence designed to blend with
the auto body shop structure and consisting of materials treated to
resist discoloration.
5. The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt or concrete
pavmg.
6. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside the
confines ofthe auto body shop.
7.
The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way shall consist of no
more than 50% metal material.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/I0
.
.
.
8.
The secondary or non-advertising wall facing a public right-of-way
shall utilize a combination of colors or materials that serve to break up
the monotony of a single color flat surface.
9. The development shall conform to minimum parking and landscaping
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
10. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop
within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone existing at the time the
conditional use permit is granted. (#175,4/24/89)
[Q] Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and off-sale liquor located within 300 ft
of a residential zone provided that:
1. Primary access must not be through residential street( s).
(#258, 9/26/94)
[R] Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the
health, safety, and general welfare of the community provided that:
I. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and
required setbacks and side yard requirements are met.
2.
Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided
in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance.
3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met. (#300, 12/8/97)
13-5: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a "B-3" district (requires an
interim use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of
this ordinance).
[A] Trucking and Trucking Service provided that:
I. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and
site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing, conforming buildings or
areas as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a
blighting influence within the district in which the proposed use is
located.
2. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential
districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance.
3.
The entire site, other than that taken up by a building, structure, or
plantings, shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and
drainage, which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
4. The site shall meet minimum lot dimension requirements of the
District.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/1 1
.
.
.
5.
No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13,
Section 4[E], of this ordinance.
6. Parking areas accessible to the public, including customers and
employees shall be paved in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 5, of
this ordinance.
7. No more than six thousand (6,000) square feet of the site shall be
devoted to the storage, parking, and/or circulation of semi-tractors and
trailers, as illustrated on a site plan submitted in connection with an
application for a conditional use permit.
8. All service activities shall occur within the principal building or
approved accessory buildings.
9. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
(#304,1/12/98)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13112
.
.
"Tl
~
OJ
"
Ol
;;:
;ii
m
.:
OJ
:l
OJ
-<
'"
ur
x
"iF
z
!R.
iii
x
CD
'"
o
Q.
CD
o
CD
0.
OJ
~
CD
~
:::J
."Tl
:;;
o
:l
-<
~
~
~
0-
s,
a:
5'
'"
00'
0-
S,
'"
CD
OJ
o
::T
'<
CD
OJ
~
0'
~
:T
CD
:!>
~
!!l.
....
'<
CD
OJ
!il
@ d
.m [
o OJ
o :l
3 :l
"0 "
OJ !!!.
iil
0.2:
-'<
o ",.
"''''
~ ::T
0> OJ
.0 CD
000
0_
"'-
=:-OJ
5' 0 x
a. 3 m
"
'"
5:
o !!!.
o "0
Z ~
o ~,
-l 0
ur
~
iil
0-
S.
'"
CI)
~
~
o
'"
"
0>
,
OJ -l )>
'" ::T :l
~ CD Q)
en or ~
3 ~ Cif
CD '" OJ
3.. :l '"
o '"
ro "
0. 3
CD
0' '"
~ :T
:f s-
CD
~ ~
en :3
"0
a
CD'
s:<
5'
o
C
0.
CD
OJ
:l
'<
OJ
0.
~
o'
:l
!!!.
"0
OJ
'3
CD
:l
ur
:T
CD
'"
OJ
3
CD
~
OJ
~
OJ
'"
OJ
~
"iF
"Tl
CD
CD
-
"Tl
iil OJ
o :3
CD
<' ~
CD .2.
0' CD
"""\ ?l
:T
CD
:T
CD
o
~
3
cO'
;;;:
cO
...
5'
ro
~
o
::T
OJ
:l
'"
CD
"1J
~
o
CD'
s:<
OJ
'"
OJ
:l
'"
OJ =:-
;;:0
=3
'iiis:
o CD
o~
3 ....
3":::
~ ~
0"
Gj' 2l.
-~
~~
..Q.c
CD '"
S' fl ~
'"
OJ
~
CD
~
iil -l
00
CD iii
:;;:" ;-
~s.
:::!or
"TlX
OJ CD
'" '"
'" ~
(ii' ~
iiiCD
::J ;;:-
o CD
51' 0.
o 0-
0'<
3 Q!. - ~
"'0 - .:::! -
~ :f
CD CD
0. _
_OJ
o 2:5.
OJ :l
:l'"
coc'
CIl ~.
~f/l
3 Q,
OJ 0
(t~
o.g
....
~-
",,,,
'< 0
CD ::T
OJ 0
~ Q.
o~
[g
o :l
m --<"
:l "'.
'< 00 0
-l_ "'~
O.
"Tl O>::T
:"'0
o ....'"
~ 01 "2,
..., o6i
[ o-=::
CD --.
:l O:l
0. ~-
'" OJ::T
;;:CD
00' _.::!J
m &f ~
- "Tl ~
3' CD '"
OJ CD '<
CD ... CD
a. ~ ~
!!t ..., (J)
'" 3 00'
~"O'"
~ a!-'J
_<<J _. ~
~ ~~
F> ....
0- ~
~ 0
CD 0
0. OJ
o '"
:l '"
"
3
5'
'"
~
:T
CD
N
o
o
....
iii
x
'"
CIl
c:::
~
):;
::0
'" .... "<
, ~
o
ill
!-?
-l -l
o 0
EI [
or '"
:l .c
0. 5i
OJ iil
iil
OJ 0'
" 0
'" iii
CD '"
0. CD
0' 0
~ -
s: s=
CD CD
3
5' 3'
0. 0.
" ~
~ s:
~ 2?.
0-
s.
a:
5'
'"
'"
:l
o
ro
0.
OJ
0-
o
<
CD
OJ
~
CD
CD
.c
"
!!!.
6"
:T
CD
"0
a
"0
o
'"
CD
0.
0-
S.
a:
5'
'"
'"
~.
~ 0
00..:':
"Tlc
CD
~ ~
"Tl "iF
OJ "Tl
3 CD
!R.
"Tl
OJ
:3
"1J
.2.
CD
~
"0
OJ
Cl
CD
(jj
~
'"
...
f"
'"
OJ
o
~
CD
.'"
o
o
3
"0
OJ
iil
0.
6"
'"
f"
'"
0'
~
:T
CD
"0
a
"0
o
'"
CD
0.
iil'
g
~
s:
iii
-n
16"
CD
..
.
)>
'"
'"
"
3
CD
'"
~
5'
0.
"
!!l.
~
~
"0
a
CD'
o
ur
~
"
a:
0-
CD
~
cO'
0'
10
0'
~
:::J
:n
I:ll
,
.po.
N
"
'"
i->
o
~
'"
'"
in
....
o
Co
N
co
'"0
o
o
co
'"0
'"
9
o
o
o
.po.
o
o
o
'"
"
'"
":..J
..,.
'"
....
en
o
Co
o
'"
o
SX'
'"
o
.en
....
....
'"
co
"in
o
sn
....
"
'"
-l ^ocn"TlC-I:E
o ~~5-~S:()cn
~"':r"3(")O-
,J1' 0" ..., "'.. -.
r- c ga.C"~ CD
..., 3 Q) ()
~ CD:J OJ
S ...,..., ~
~
TT"'j""'j""j""'IT
....a. ~..... -"...............
)>)>)>)>)>)>)>
N
...... NOl.....wmw..j::t.
N O.,f::t.ClWOtO<.O
~ oO~OJworvo
4::10 OQ.,f::t.O>oo.,J:::..
C) OQOlOOQ....a.
t; W<XlWN<OO':l(o
W mmmeooww
....
....
.....N .....w.........a.
~ OW(]'l~oo"c.n
C OOl....l.OO>WW
~ O<XlO1l\)....I.Wa
to oco~"'.....!a.~w
c 0000000
o 0000000
'"
i->
'"
.co
....
o
o
.....cnWN"'..j::t.cn
o ON"""-Jwco<o
-.....IOlN-"COo)Ol
m~""""Nj::..~~
0000000
0000000
..........00...........0
<OCO-.....l<Xl.,f::t.N<Y.I
....l......e,nc.nwom
6666666
0000000
-"-............-"-............ ......
0000000
.................. -"-..................
0000000
CJ1,,/::l.VJWOlVJW
OwOw......CO......
oa,a,oo:.....~
OCOO(JlI\,)............
~
WCOI\,),,/::l.--O>0>
I\,)CO,,/::l.O~OO>
t ):..o,N~OW~
0) ~~~~gg~
~ 0000000
~ 0000000
....
....
'"
i.n
....
en
tv ......w............
(O~O>............(j)CO
000:"'"("",,,,,,,
co,J::..co,J::..m......'"
CJ1CO"'O>OOlO1
0000000
0000000
Ncn.....N"'~,J:::l.
J\,) NO (j) '" "'..... CJ1
Co ON~Olc.nOO
co ):..Co(oNf-vWm
CD ~~~::jggg;3
~ o~c>>a,aoo
~ 0000000
c.>
-....
'"
en
":..J
'"
..,.
N"""'.....WCO,J:::l.CJ1
O>N:COVJWc.o~
(J'lO>CO.....~~w
o,IDOOIDOOOO):..
o <DCJ10l0.....,0l
W01CO,,",OOOl
oa,;..,,~ooo
0000000
N
W N.....r-v.....,,,/::l.CJ1
U'I ....., c:o 0..... ow ~
~ .....w.....OO>,,/::l.VJ
..... w~Coo,ooo,~
U'I .....O(J'lOON tTI
W W(J'l~O>OOCJ'l
'l'"
~
>
m
CIl
-i
3:
~
m
o
s::
>
;0
"
m
-I
~
c:
m
~
o
S
m
C/l
Ol
zC:
)>!!!
s:Z
mm
C/l
C/l
N
o
Z
m
C/l0l
PEi
~Cl
. ,
~~,...
:ON 0
~m-l
~~
CO
mCl
~~
C:o
m
-c
a
~
~
'"
'"
,
<cnOl
~PEi
ffi~Cl
m
C/l
-l
s~
mO
C/lco
Z
m
-I
o
o~
Z-I
~~
m
C/l
~::u Jf
"#. !, ,...
"o3m
-< .... C" CJ)
~-lm!-?
-Ol III
>< r+ .....
m@:;;
....~
-::!:; = z
!1 (ii' ~ ~
~e:S';I
-<~ d)(
!il 0' C'" CD
-::lI '< (II
.. !!!.
C/l
cli' n
.a:m
;;iZ
i-m
~ ~ 2:!
2.0'0
" N
100
z
c
c:
C/I
~(1
)>0;;0
r-3:m
":"tI)>
':")>r-
~~m
<~C/I
,^ _ -l
'" < )>
(1m-l
O)>m
3:Z~
3:)>><
m~m
;;oC/lC/l
(1-
-C/I
)>
r-
......
lXl
I
.!:>o
--
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
12. Consideration of a reauest for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail
commercial development at Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition. Applicant: Dan
Mielke. (NAC)
BACKGROUND
Mielke Development, LLC is seeking an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for
development stage Planned Unit Development for the construction of a shopping
center, and a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through lane, located at Lot 5 of
Monticello Travel Center Second Addition.
The applicant is proposing a 9,590 square foot commercial center with multiple
tenants to be located in the northeast portion of the site. The underlying zoning is B-
4, Regional Business.
ANALYSIS
.
The subject site is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of State Highway
25 and Oakwood Drive. The existing Planned Unit Development contains a Subway
restaurant with a drive through, a Jiffy Lube, a Holiday convenience store and motor
fuel station, a Dairy Queen restaurant with a drive through, and a second multi-tenant
commercial center. The subject site is located in the center of the development,
fronting on Cedar Street. The site relies on PUD for shared parking, shared access,
and setback flexibility.
Comvrehensive Plan: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
commercial use.
Zoninl!: The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The purpose ofthe B-3,
highway business district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor
vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities.
CUP/PUD: A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance
standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher
standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the
applicant's responsibility to design the development with significant benefits and
communicate those benefits to the City for allowing a CUP/PUD.
.
Parking. The proposed building is 9,590 square feet in area. The proposed uses for
the structure have not been provided. Drive through lanes are proposed for the
northernmost unit and easternmost units of the building. The drive through indicates
that these unit will be reserved for restaurant uses. One restaurant unit is shown at
1,499 square feet, and one is shown at 1,566 square feet. The total kitchen and dining
areas for these tenants have not been provided. Staff has therefore estimated the area
ofthe kitchen at 1/3 of the units. Tenants for the remainder of the site are assumed to
be various retail services. Restrooms and refuse rooms have also been illustrated on
the plan. As such, the estimated parking requirement is as follows:
.
Tenant
Restaurant I
1,499 sftotal
Restaurant 2
1,566 sf total
Retail
Retail
Retail
Total Required
Area
1,049.3 square feet
449.7 square feet
1,096.2 square feet
469.8 square feet
1,324 square feet
1,143 square feet
1,161 square feet
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05107
Requirement
I space/40 sf of dining area
I space/80 sf of kitchen area
I space/40 sf of dining area
I space/80 sf of kitchen area
I space/200 sf of floor area
I space/200 sf of floor area
I space/200 sf of floor area
Stalls
27 spaces
6 spaces
28 spaces
6 spaces
7 spaces
6 spaces
6 spaces
86 spaces
The site plan illustrates 59 parking stalls, 27 short of the minimum requirement. The
remaining Planned Unit Development area contains approximately 272 parking stalls,
15 of which are directly adjacent to the site. Some overlap in uses is expected, and
therefore a cross parking arrangement may be accommodated by PUD to reduce the
number of stalls required.
Due to the need for cross parking to accommodate the shortage, staff recommends
that the applicant provide a leasing arrangement whenever available so that the
overlap in uses may be evaluated more effectively.
.
Drive Through. The applicant is proposing two drive through lanes circulating
around the site. One drive through lane is located on the east side of the building,
with traffic circulating from south to north. The second drive through is on the north
side of the building, with traffic circulating from east to west. As designed, vehicles
exiting the east drive through lane will meet vehicles entering the north drive through
lane. Thick striping is proposed to delineate the two drive through lanes and ease
traffic circulation. The City recommends using epoxy or poly-preformed striping for
longevity and reduced maintenance.
Drive through establishments are allowed in the B-4 District by Conditional Use
Permit. The Zoning Ordinance contains the following provisions for such uses:
. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall
not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance
oflot.
. At the boundaries of a residential district a strip of not less than five 5 feet
shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of
this ordinance.
. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or
covered.
. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in
compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curb not less
than six 6 inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade.
. Vehicular access points shall be limited shall create a minimum of conflict
with through traffic movements shall comply with Chapter 3 Section 5 of this
ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible
from the public right of way or from an abutting residence and shall be in
compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 H of this ordinance.
. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval
of the City Engineer.
. The entire area other than that occupied by buildings or structure or plantings
shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage and
which is subject to the approval ofthe City Engineer.
. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with Chapter 3 Section 9 of this ordinance.
.
As proposed, each drive through lane is 12 feet in width. The north drive through
lane appears to approximately 75 feet of stacking space, enough for up to six vehicles
behind the pick-up window, and two vehicles behind the order board. The east drive
through lane appears to have approximately 58 feet for stacking space, enough for up
to five vehicles behind the pick-up window and two behind the order board.
For the north drive through lane, overflow stacking may be accommodated internally
by the existing parking lot drive lane. However, staff is concerned with any overflow
stacking for the east drive through lane. An existing drive through lane for Chelsea
Commons exits directly adjacent to the entrance to the east drive through lane. As
such, any overflow stacking may prevent patrons from circulating through the
Chelsea Commons drive through.
The applicant has not indicated potential users for the site, making it difficult to
evaluate the potential volume of the drive through lanes. A low volume drive through
would typically accommodate a business such as a coffee shop. The existing Caribou
Coffee drive through has an average of five to six cars in the drive lane at one time,
with more during peak periods. Therefore, the proposed stacking space would be
appropriate for a low-volume use. However, a higher intensity fast-food use may
cause congestion problems with the proposed drive through configuration. As noted,
staff recommends that the applicant provide more detail on the potential drive through
users through submittal of a leasing plan, so that a more thorough analysis of the
situation may be performed.
The consulting engineer has reviewed the drive through design and provides the
following comments:
.
1.
There does not appear to be enough room for stacking cars at the drive
through window located at the northeast entrance.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 06105107
.
2. Replace the proposed concrete bollards with a concrete island.
Landscaping. For commercial sites, a minimum of one overstory tree per 1,000
square feet of gross building floor area, or one tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter,
whichever is greater, is required. The site has approximately 822.53 lineal feet of site
perimeter, requiring 17 overstory trees, as opposed to the 10 that would be required
under the floor area calculation.
The applicant has provided one ofthe required 17 overstory trees, as well as six
ornamental trees. The ornamental trees are proposed along the east property line.
The applicant is also proposing three irrigated planters on a concrete island on the
north side of the site, adjacent to the drive through lane. A fourth planter is proposed
on a concrete island in the southeast comer of the site. Additional shrubs are also
proposed for the north side of the site, and in the southeast comer. No foundation
landscaping is illustrated on the plan and no grass is proposed with the exception of
the landscaped strip along the east property line.
.
Lighting. A lighting plan has been submitted for the site, indicating full cutoff
lighting throughout the parking lot. The photometric plan indicates readings as high
as 2.8 footcandles at the property line adjacent to Cedar Street. Per ordinance, the
lighting plan shall be required to be revised prior to Final Stage PUD, illustrating
readings under one footcandle at the property line.
Signage. In the case of a building where there are two or more uses and which, by
generally understood and accepted definitions, is considered to be a shopping center
or shopping mall, a conditional use permit may be granted to the entire building in
accordance to an overall site plan indicating their size, location, and height of all
signs presented to the Planning Commission. A maximum of 5% of the gross area of
the front silhouette shall apply to the principal building where the aggregate allowable
sign area is equitably distributed among the several businesses. For purposes of
determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette
shall be defined as that area within the outline drawing of the principal building as
viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street(s). Several existing
pylon signs are located throughout the Planned Unit Development.
The front fayade is approximately 2,124 square feet in area. The building will also be
visible from Oakwood Drive, with a silhouette area of2,283 square feet. The total
silhouette area for the site is 4,407 square feet. Therefore, the total allowable area for
wall signage is 221 square feet.
.
The applicant is proposing ten, 26 square foot wall signs, for a total of 260 square
feet. Two wall signs are proposed on the east elevation, three on the south elevation,
four on the west elevation, and one on the north elevation. The location of signage
on all sides is acceptable. However, staff recommends that the applicant reduce the
amount of wall signage proposed to not exceed 221 square feet.
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
The applicant is also proposing a multi-tenant pylon sign at a height of 26 feet near
the JiffY Lube site adjacent to Highway 25. The face area of this sign has not been
provided, but has been calculated by staff at approximately 143 square feet. As a
condition of approval, the applicant shall be required to provide the square footage of
the tenant panels on this sign.
For properties on Highway 25, 3.03 feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 10
feet oflineal frontage with the following exceptions:
. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 regardless of front
footage abutting Highway 25, and
. The maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of total lineal
footage of property abutting Highway 25.
The overall PUD has approximately 850 feet of frontage on Highway 25 and is
therefore allowed a pylon sign up to 100 square feet.
.
A second monument sign is also proposed in the southeast comer of the site, at the
entrance adjacent to Cedar Street. This sign is 90 square feet in area and contains
nine identification placards. Cedar Street is a collector street with a speed limit of30
miles per hour. As such, a monument sign 25 feet in area and 16 feet in height is
allowed. Although this proposed sign exceeds the maximum requirement, staff
encouraged the applicant to propose a monument sign in lieu of a pylon sign in this
location. Due to the size of the overall PUD, and the number of tenants, the proposed
monument sign may be appropriate.
Access and Circulation. Access to the site is provided by two existing curb cuts off
Cedar Street, one on the north side ofthe site and one on the south side ofthe site.
Cross access is possible to the north and south. Internal drive lanes on the west side
of the site are proposed at 24 feet in width, wide enough to accommodate two-way
traffic. The internal drive lane on the east side of the site is proposed at 16.24 feet,
and is striped as a one-way drive. Cars exiting the site on the east side will have the
option of exiting to the north only, into the drive lane between the subject site and the
proposed Wendy's site. This drive will serve as a passing lane for the adjacent drive
through lane. Two "ENTER ONLY" signs, one on each side of the entrance, shall be
required at the entrance ofthis one-way drive aisle on the east side of the site. The
applicant shall also be required to provide a "DO NOT ENTER" sign east of the exit
lane at the northeast comer of the site.
No passing is proposed adjacent to the north drive lane, prohibiting cars from
circulating around waiting vehicles. A "DRIVE THRU ONLY" sign shall be
required at the entrance to this drive through lane to communicate that no pass
through lane is provided.
.
Pedestrian access will be accommodated by a concrete sidewalk running along the
south and west sides of the building. A sidewalk connection is also provided to the
Subway site to the west. The width of the sidewalk in front of the building is
5
Plalll1ing Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
proposed at eight feet. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a crosswalk at
the sidewalk separation extending west to the Subway site. An existing sidewalk is
also located on the east side ofthe site, within the Cedar Street right-of-way.
Building Design. The building is proposed to be constructed mainly of EIFS block
with masonry wall base and pre-finished metal coping. The front of each unit will
contain a great deal of glass, each with a fabric awning. Some variation to the
roofline is also proposed, to break up the long fa9ade. All sides ofthe building
contain windows, vertical elements, and roofline variation. The only side without
fabric awnings is the east side, as no entrances are proposed. The proposed trash
enclosure will be incorporated into the building and be sectioned offby a steel door.
The color elevations provided illustrate warm earth tones with gray tinted glass and
green awnings. The proposed colors appear to blend well with the existing buildings
on the Monticello Travel Center site.
Grading and Drainage. The City Engineer and the consulting engineer from WSB
have reviewed the grading and drainage plans and provided the following comments:
.
1. If not connecting to storm sewer stub on south end of site either remove stub
back to the manhole or install a water-tight plug in upstream end of stub.
2. Revise directional arrows for storm sewer on south end of site. Currently
shown going in two directions from manhole.
3. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate.
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
4. Provide a detail of the curb section on the west property boundary.
5. The applicant needs to provide a drainage map detailing the drainage areas for
each proposed catch basin and the locations of existing catch basins are not
identified on the plan.
6. Provide details of how the drainage directed off site is managed specifically,
the northwest entrance, north parking spaces and the south parking spaces.
Utilities. Regarding the utility plan submitted, the City Engineer and consulting
engineer have provided the following comments:
.
1. Provide utility profiles at each utility crossing location to check for conflicts.
Information incomplete at present.
2. Provide insulation at storm sewer and watermain crossings per City Standard
Detail Plates 2005 and 2006.
3. Provide easements for sanitary manhole and downstream pipe near northeast
corner of site. Extend easement to Cedar Street right-of-way.
4. All unused sanitary sewer and watermain service lines must be removed back
to the main, otherwise the developer will be responsible for maintaining all
abandoned lines in the future.
5. Construct sanitary sewer manhole as standard sampling manhole near
northeast corner of site per City Standard Detail Plate 3007.
6
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
6. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate.
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
7. Show an overall site detail of the location of fire hydrants and access to the
hydrants per the fire department expectations.
8. Include details of how the sanitary sewer clean out will be protected from
traffic loads.
9. It appears that there are a number of sanitary and storm sewer stubs which will
not be used with this project. Include a plan to abandon or remove these lines.
Stormwater. The City Engineer has reviewed the stormwater plans and provided the
following comment:
1. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate.
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
.
Decision 1. Regarding the request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for
Development Stage Planned Unit Development for a strip center with retail and
commercial, and restaurant uses, the City has the following options:
1. Motion to recommend to approval of the Development Stage Planned Unit
Development, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with
the intent of the existing PUD and the B-3 District, subject to the condition
outlined in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe Conditional Use Permit for Development
Stage Planned Unit Development approval, based on a finding that the
proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the existing PUD and the
B-3 District, and the use may not be supported by the site.
Decision 2. Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for two drive
through facilities, the City has the following options:
1. Motion to recommend approval ofthe Conditional Use Permit for two drive
through facilities, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent
with the intent of the PUD and the use satisfies the conditions of approval.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for two drive
through facilities, based on a finding that the conditions for approval have
not been met.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Mielke Development, LLC is requesting an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit
for Development Stage Planned Unit Development to allow for commercial strip
7
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05107
center containing a variety of retail and commercial uses, as well as two restaurant
uses with drive through lanes. The site is part of the existing Monticello Travel
Center Planned Unit Development, which contains a mix of retail, restaurant, and
servIce uses.
The proposed use appears to be generally consistent with the intent of the B-3 District
and the existing PUD. Staff has highlighted concerns with the proposed
development, which may be found listed in Exhibit Z. Regarding Decision I, staff
recommends approval of the amended CUP for Planned Unit Development, subject to
these conditions outlined in Exhibit Z.
Regarding Decision 2, staff recommends approval ofthe CUP for a drive through
facility, subject to tlJe conditions in Exhibit Z. The site has adequate room for
stacking space for low-volume drive through uses. However, no information has
been provided as to potential tenants for the site. Staff is aware that leasing
information may not be available at thiJ time. However, when this information does
become available, staff requests that the applicant provide details on the proposed
users so that stacking space may be adequately evaluated.
.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
ExhibitJ:
Exhibit K:
Exhibit L:
Exhibit M:
Exhibit Z:
.
Site Plan
Grading/Erosion Control Plan
Utility Plan
SWPP Plan
Architectural Site Plan
Landscape Plan - Revised
Signage Plan - Revised
Signage Narrative
Floor Plan
Exterior Elevations - Revised
Photometric Plan
Plan Review Comments from Bruce Westby, dated OS/21/07
Plan Review Comments from WSB, dated OS/22/07
Conditions of Approval
8
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07
.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Development Stage PUD for Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition, Lot 5, Block 1
1. The photometric plan shall be revised to reduce the footcandle reading at the property
line adjacent to Cedar Street to not exceed one footcandle.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised signage plan, illustrating wall signage not to exceed
221 square feet total. The applicant shall also be required to provide square footage of
the proposed pylon sign.
3. A crosswalk shall be provided at the sidewalk separation extending west to Subway.
4. The applicant shall use epoxy or poly-preformed striping for longevity and reduced
maintenance.
5. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer as outlined in
the May 21 st memo prepared by Bruce Westby and the May 22nd memo prepared by
WSB.
.
Conditions of Approval
CUP for Drive Through Lanes
1. A "drive-thru only" sign shall be required at the entrance to the north drive through lane.
2. The applicant shall provide additional information in regard to the proposed drive
through tenants when available so that staff may adequately review the stacking space
proposed.
.
9
.
.
,
'~
1fj;e"'\
;;:'---:: 7
::/~ ,6 ().
I I /_____~. U
.~
l-:l - - J0 ~-1::
0 0
. , . . . ..
0 ~~ ~ ~ -( -
0 =Il
'" ~ , J:l ~
~ l' ~ ,." :l:)
~ r- Cl --.
<:. '11 C> C;j '" ,1) 'i)
<:> ill ~ (n <:: ~ ,
~
0 ,i'iJ ;;;:, -. 'I
~ V, ?e ~ )<J ,"
~ j~ S& )i" I" ::>:>~
I . ~ ' ~ ~ 1")-;
I~ ~ m ~ r- ::t> ,....
,,,\\ '" ;:! ;-;,
~. ~ I,j f')
, ' ;J
f \: 6 .::b , ,." -,
."
~~ \) ..., ~
.~ '" 5?
!n "l '" 'U
I~:' '"'=l \) 'V. G ~~
. ~ ~ c. -I 'I -,
. . ' -i l> ~
~ 0:1 '"
~
- :::"
~ ~ ,,'
~ I ~
. ~ V1
~~ ~ ff ~v..
"'c::;
J"""
t:: "
- '"
" -
'"
-\
?'->i
:l>i
-z..
v'
i'"
, 0
,I ~
~
'"
~~
~ ~
~ .
:3" ~
/,__nu_ ~~
, ~
~"
00
8'
go'!'
2..'g
,
/
./
<>
i
,
/
~~'.<~~:~::,:j~"'Z @
'f.>- ;; "" """,-
~, -i .
~ 3:
o _.
(\) C')
- 0 r-
~" ::So
~ (\) n::s
go ~Cl
-+(\) -+3
-. <: c: 0
@~ti'o.,
-o~-""
0"0 · (J)
'3 -. ~
3:(\) ~::s
Z~ '"O~
, - .,
r- 0
r- ::s
C')
"
o
,
'"
5'
'"
"
,
o
<
0:
.
Q.
~(j
..
~
0>
<>
"
'"
'"
V<
~
e.
or
<0
<>
~
~~ .~
t ~""
(\ ~..=.
~(/ ~
" ~
J
if
!
i
,(
i;.
~~m
%t~.
;u,'
:;1. "
. .
~~,
~If
?J
~.~
12' ~p:-
~
C)
\:J
<:::),
lrJ
In
\J
r.....
~
~
C)
c,
(',
~
~
"
~
C0
v-
'::S'
~
()
~
Hit". J~ fll"... I
Hfi'!, I ~lfl!I'!1
{';l I .~,
__ firm i I !1~11I11
-
"~=~':'" -= \ 2fi ~
JIHVI\:G_\IV"l ~!. __;: .'XV'Id :tfHVN!!S i <
LO-n-SiO 'IVlLlLIJ~H[}S AlLIO
.
. ,
,
( r- -----.,
0 ,
,
0 ,
\ ,
,
,
,
"~ C!; ,
,
,
,
,
'.
--..'-:--.,
--
--
--
'.
"
.11 ,.
j:
I'
.I . .
,.
~ iii
+- II
jI
\}. 1
. ~ [>
\1\
\:l
~f t
-
V'l10- X
'\)
'II
1'1
l'b
,l
Q
~)
~
'C)
,
u..J
~
II
I
.
\lW
LANDMARK CENTER SIGNAGE PROPOSAL
5/14/07
Building signage
Standard code multi-tenant building signage for each suite as illustrated on
the elevations.
Due to the fact this building will be surrounded by drives and the building
front architecture is carried around all four sides of the building, city staff
has suggested the addition of appropriate building signage as illustrated.
Tenant Pvlon
We propose combining the Landmark Center tenant pylon with the existing
Jiffy Lube pylon as illustrated.
The Jiffy capsule will remain at the top. The old style reader board will be
replaced by an electronic reader board with seven Landmark Center tenant
identification panels below.
. Landmark Center will waive tenant's rights to the city permitted temporary
signs. We want to keep the area uncluttered.
Cedar Street entrance monument
Decorative low profile entrance marker monument sign.
Drive Thru entrance markers
One low profile entrance marker for each drive thru lane.
.
.
COfl1 60
0/ PiP Y /L /q IV 0/11 IT R f\
PYLON
C'EV"-F17 iz.-11
- to I _'<;'
5/1 e-t/o ?
."'^\.',
gL G'~~~! .~,i-
~111 10 1001
.
"-\
I
JifFY
ELECtRONIC READER
I
TE IlJt'! NT PANi:.L 5'
L
f-
1-
!
I
;
.
11'"
,
~
_J
0:=
'--I
O. \ :--'~ ' ,
I..r
) ~",'
c::::J ""I; :_~J
I '__J
II =
I
I
I
I ,
, \ \ i
" n " II 11 ;t~~1 i~ H
li .'
" " ~~ ~; ~.
if if . :"~
. " ,~ - ~ ; J~
:5/15/2007) Dan Mielke - A3.1.pdf
RECEIVEU
. MAY 152007
.
.
~" :t
'i !~
"
~f S !?
~~ , i~
i1 ) t
....I
, 'I'
'.' "
v:-..!.:
:~...:J
0=
CITY SUBMITTAL 05-14-07
'. 'j Ii:X'I'Ii:I{IUU H.""__ , ... ~PlniiF ; ~!f i'I'I--
L.iliD:..'ILUlil.: fl}
..... k:u<::'-....'I'IO['>.'~ ."...... Cg:"J'l'l<~1-{ 1<111111. Ida
7'"'1 " .jtl"'j'
~ 'II liliil !f11
.... I "."",,,,.~ .\lO~'l'l<'.;r,I>(I. M~ It'I!1
",,,.,,,,, &!I,liIiI Jilll
\
\
'.
H
I'
.'
I
m
'.
,
i
~'. ~:I-
~ "-
C\ ~
, -
i- !
0=
jC
.:~.,
~+._- - "'~
. . ._.~.._,-,~
I
Page 1 I
11-5
m
t
"1
,
~
0,:
---------,
---..
--t
----------
Cl
-'J
i><, z
z "
t'&'
~
!~
IV
o
".
0;
g
"'~
~ii
......om
""'- .
w3:.
~zif'
IV",..
'",<>
:>>WN
....0
",W..
~
m
1ti"
~
c:
o
::l
.
~
....
m
~
....
C)"
::l
r
OJ
:::J
z a.
~ 3:3
",0 OJ
';:;'
.... _.
~n~
. Ill;\ ..
N=
00
0'
'-l~n
~ CD
c: :::J
g: t"""'t'
CD
~
.
"
..
Hlfl) I rtf'''!" I"
HiP, < I lil1iJJt!
{':lll ~J~I~!11 I
_ Ihm ! j ! LlHlllh
Cl ~
UJ <='
::>-
-
u.l
(..)
u.l
0::
.
CJ
, '~\'2:>~,\V
'J....I<I-'>
;q,}:~,/;\"v_>_
z
~
..
o
~
~
~
o
~
8
Z
o
~
...........
-
.NN '<YrI30LLN:ON
""",",,'d
--
....
-
H~WN~O .~~
JlHVW<INV'I _ I . . . "'::': iL:!r.!IHS H:!L\;
LO-t'l-SO "IVwwIWHilS A-'
~ii~~~'Z ~Z~;~~~ ~~~. ~i~i8~~~i~~~~'I!a~SO ~~~~~a~ii~~~~~~~~~~ij~s~e~ggR~M~ii~~ s~~a~~~. ~i~~~IJ~~!;~!~~~ ..!~fill ~~~~'
IIlliW"llllmn~i IlimIQl~lm~J! ~!IU~jlil~I!I~llInilU;mn~llniuIPIU mplill~~illl ~~IUllmn
1111 Pll I~ I' I': ~ !'I,I! i l'~1 ~!~ i~! t! · i nl
I~~~I~~~~~~ e~~5w ~~~m~mj~ii~m~:li~ii~~R~~F%~~~~~~&" s~ ~~~ 8.~~W:O, -~~~ ~a'i~i~!~!iS~ijW i~I~~~8~Er ~~u'~~I~i~
!iUij!ml ~;HU' ~~mn;liIIIIIUIII~I!~mflmiU~ !' ni IIIiRpo Iml~iQ~n~II~I~r mm!lii ~U~m"i
! ! !il ~ ~~ IIII In ~ ij I ~ ~I ~ I e ~~ ~I ih"d H ~i~
I ~ ~ ~ ;; i i J;ij; ! Ii
ua_u ~~~~~~i < ii-iUiF ~~~~~i'jii~ll~j~W ~~;li~~ij~S~~!'UW!~lt,~~~ ~it. RW~i~!~I'P~'~'~~W ~~ ~~l~~llfmn)~m~
;11~t~ !!II!!i ~J;lli li~;g~I&I~lllli~~1 !llliiililll!lilliBtlillll!illli f~III!I'IIII!III;D!111 Ii lili~IIIIIIIII~~iii
I if ~ll HI ni n q n ~li dd In i ~ .q I il~iI I!I ~ I i~ ~;lla I e ijUllillil ii~ If .
f I II i i ~~ J gi I l ~I I ~ i n Ii J t ~ .
e ~ q ~ n ~ ~ i ~ I i~ ~ :
~ i.
~~~Itlill I ~ ~ n 11 I I
i "~n'p 1 ~ I I. II II I !
~ ~! m~m~'1~ ~ . ~;~!il~ !!
"-f ~ .l I: ~.~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ [~~
= ~,... *' - ~ i ~ 2" ~i ~ g~ ~
I"! @ I I ~ ~ i ~ : i r--~i
! !, i Ii;; >. I g ~__)
.
'~l ~ Plli"r ~
-=:--:.>;.-=:.: II Ii s~ IMllf! ~
_-.. IIhl .~. n I ~
":wi 'NI7HC*-ISAaW fHiiJ! II illh'llll~
_ fihh ~ 1.1Il it .
NJ'( 'OTIllIOLLNOJll
~...
-
NOOnm<'d
--
NJ'IIIOII"ll .xo
--
H:![LLN:![O .".m.".... '. :ELLV;
JHIVWCINV'I _ I. . , ~,;;; \./1\
LO-t-T-90 "'IVwwlwa.o
~n III I d ii !! ~
iii II I I
I q ~
~~ ~ III I II H Ii , ~ I I
l I t <<
" ~ ,~I;J l~ ;~ I ill
q
~ I !'lll ft~ ,i % ~R~
o . x <II "hd~ h~ ;11.
a
, .
"
"
'.
"
"
,
,
"
"
".
"
(j
, .
" (..0
I
'-.J I
"
\)
",
"
,
,
".
1-,
,
,,""
,
I~
~a
· lJ' Hlli""1
tl'j , G '~1' f
--- ..--- hhlJ. ! 1'1,11.,
-- ,...-.---"""""'" Ih j 01 j)t I
;:-~-tElAa~ It'JIJi, J ~ HIIt'llllt!
_ - IHh ~ ~.ln h .
~
g '"
!i~
i I~i '~F
I n ~~i~ />
i: ~! ~ I
z. /
III I
r I ~ n .1 I
b II ~I ~i .!.
, .
~ ~ U ..
.
--1 ~9 , I ~~
~ .
n II ~i~~
II U . Ii ~11!i
e. !;nh
u
~i ~~j .
Sill ~
III I!I~ II
.~
: 9
i g 8
,"< Ii
; . ~ ~I
~
r3
"..
@:~l
NN 'O'l'l:IlOl;r.NON
.........
-
Ji(~";: NVPId
.......... NOll
H[[J.N:E[O sao";"-::; ':!I
- .
JlHVWCINV'I _ I, , , "'==
LO-f'T-90 r"}VJ..J..IWffiJ
,
~gl~U~
"~ri'
"1-9 i!.iM i5h
hi ~ ~I
'i~ i & ~ ~ -
18b II i l
If _I~I "
z
e~!e ij
a
~dl~ I r~ . ..
E
9.~ ~ "
" .Ill
· PI'''1j ~
i:lltjl~~ ~ IlliJl.'} D
w J 11t.i U
-=~-;'=~ {lIlli, ~ iJllt'lllt!
;;:;;-............. Ihl!lt 1..111 " · J
- ~ ~
~II~
~I
i
~~~
h
lIu
~!~!:~
~ i~~ii~
~~ !~~~~~
~~~
:i2.~
I ~~
. ~I~
~5~
~~~
~~~
g~<
~ ~~~
:::: ~<iiI!
~ >Il~
~ ~~.~
I ~,h
~
d
!~
F~ E
~~ ~
.
~~
dl
li~~
~ I~
~ -;
~ ~.
. ~~
I
!!
Id
1 ~ ~
,I U
"i < ~
F
l
~~I ~
>
Uu ~ ~ ~
OCaa ~ . ~ ~
~~~~ ~~ ~ ~
~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
i Un ~ n ~ ~~
I .... l ~ ~~ ~~ ~~
l:m I ~ i~.8 .~
~i)i~m I
, "
, ~
. -- ~
n
"O'l'IlI[OIJ:.NON
NN
~"fl-::
N~";:
...... '.
.-
HWNHO I "':..w:
H rr..~ " , , T~TCT.o
JIHVW..........".L - wI.JI'W..Cl.
LO-f'T-90 "IVw
""","
""" .-
iM~g I~
f~ ~~~ ~
~~ ~e!i~ ~ /,
~~~I Q
~ ~h '"
~ HM z
Q
Q ~
'" ~~~~
z
5 ou
I>-
~ 0::
ou
::: " I>-
Q - '-
:c
0:: ..
~ "
..
"-
e
~I~~
MI
~ml
l!s
~III
hli ~
~
~ ~ ~
111!~'~! b :~
z 0.) .\' CM
~ ,', ,>,',i
~ ~~~ ~i ~
,~~~~~ ~. ~~
gh~! ~~ ~~!J
~ ..J ~~ ~a~
.~~u ~. Bf~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~.~
~~h~~ ~~ ~h
~I~- ~ h
I~~~~ ~~~
"~~~il ~~~
Idi~ ~nl
t,til~J ~ nl~I'J'H I
__~ .,...-cnuq" II !i i I 'II
-=.::::-_""';'m IHI I. < i fi1>Uf)
"ONJ 'NnHOINElA3W ft~l)t. I ~ lllhilt~1
_ fluh i dlhht:
NJ\l 'OTIlIIOIWNOW
.-0,'"
-
~.::i l'l
......... NOIJ;NilL\
--
H:ffiLNI!IO RBD"""'.O NOlm'J
JIUVWaNV"I _ I, , , "':;..,;; H:!LLV1lil.~
LO-17T-90 "IVwwIWHIlS 1
~~~ ~ 0 ~~ ~
h~i ~ ~ ~ il h
~I~~I; ~ ~~~~
~.~~i. I ~~~~
~~ ~~ < .~~
~~I~~ ~I. . ~ I~~~
~~.~- .~ ~ ~ . Ih~.
~~~~~ ~! 8 ~ ~ !j~h
!~~~. ~ ~ " ~ 2~~
~~~~~~ ~I ~ ~~; ~~!~
1~5~~~ ~l ~ ~. ~ ~~~~
~~~I~~'I .~~ ~ ~~ ~ !~~~
~~~ l ~ ~ ,~~ ~~~.
0'8" ~ ~ z~ ~ ~"".
~~ ~~" ~ ~ i ~~ ~
l~g!l~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Ig
g~~~~~ ~~ !J ~ ~ E ~il~
~~~~i~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i.
~~~~!~~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
e&
,
~
~
~
,
I
I
/
~ i~ \
. II ~~~ ~ II~ \
"I
~ ~ ~I~" i ~
~ i! ~!! I m
~ 1---
. ~~ ~
i in h
H · hI ~
I.~ o~ "
"
~~ '"""""" /
~Ii .li;Od""I~&rl
"i ~. ~r .. ~
~ I iU in !
,t ~h ~Ii II .
;U~ 111!llll! I
~,. ~z u~ .
1m ~~ ~ L ... ~ "1-1 ii !
~ ~ s u H~ ~I
'~~~
~:i :i ~
~ "~ ~
h ~
~- .
flfl"i; I
mm ! I 11!lflh'JI
lilin Iq !iJHfl i
nuu. j ! !JlIllllh
--
NW 'OT:I:![OIWNOJII . . . .:: N\'
~ 03
HHWN:tlO I "':..~
}lHVJ\lUNV'I - rJVwwIJi\T8J1S
LO-f'T-~O
----------
""'-------
- ----- - --- ,
""'- - ---..,
I
.
1AlllI..."1lD
-
_'d
--
II h ;~~;r
I u ~Ra'-
J
~
IIJ ~ ~H J
~zn m "
L
..
~
d)
~ i I If
Q "Uf U i
~ fWUln
~
~
I!!
ii)
~
::>
...
U
w
!: ~
:I.
ii ~
<l: .
11111J JJ fl)I"i" ~
':-0;1 <; ,ii/flit! I
fthH ja ~h(1 I
f{'jh~ ! I ! jJllt,"'I!
_ f UtI. a ,.III It ..
NN 'OT:mIDIWNOJll
H~~O ~~
JUIVWaNV"I _ I , , ,-:;..":;; :B:dVOSI
LO-"1-90 ~V~~IWH[lS 1
!
~
I
U I
/
I
I
/
I
I
/
I
ld
I ....
I ...........
/ .... ~
I ~
j[
/ D 0
I
../
......,
~10
-
_Od
-
....
--
~
n Ul ~ ~ ~
iii
I!l S ~ ~ ~
... ~ .. .. ..
.l>.
J ~
I } ~
il
= .... f
~ ..
~ "' l'
if. i 1 I
i! i ~
!! t J
~ ;;
ill 1 j I JJ
-1 ~ j
::3
0
ill
::r
0 f )
U) 1.
~ i ~ ! f J
1 ....
Z .D
{! J
I- ~ f 1
z }
'<:[
-1
0.... >-
l:t "' '" U 0
~ ~ .. ,. ~
iilffl JI ll~i"i~ i
':..H P Jii1flh!
ithH'. .,10(1 I
It'!tl!: ~ i ! if1lti1lf!
_ f 1 h a ..llblt ..
.......,...
-
NN 'OTIJl[OI.LN:ON
........ 'd
--
'HaLN:!ID """""""..
JI'HVW<INV'I _ I . . . ":..~ NV'Id :at),
LO-f'l-gO "IV.:L.:LIWHilS _
....
.-
~~j
3,~
~.~
IIi
I~~
s
~~~
u~
~~r
~u
iil
!i
I
.
,
,
r-------.,
o
l 8-
'" -...../
~~
-....~~~
-......;:;.~
~ -....
~~
-....
h
Ht11j I
fl.iI~ q
IBm I"
J{~IH ~ j !
..... 1.1 a
r---------------. r----------i
I I I I
,-
fill" Ii I
111'iIU., I
~ '(111
Hlltl' Ii!
..Ill It 0
~..,t...
-
NN 'OTI:iIDI;LNOJll
..........d
-
....
--
H[[WN[E[O ~.;:
:HHVJ\IaNV'I _ I. . , ~ NV"Ic
LO-f'I-SiO "IVwwIJ\Uln~
r-----------..,
I I
Hlft) I l~i'T I --...
-
Ilrit "I Ji) ft),! .NJI\1 'OTDIDIiLNOPl """"""d
1mB I --
~Iirlll j ....
.-
hlW ! I ! iJ tl ll~ HOULNrn:O ~~ SNOJ
..iIl It .. JiHVWCINV'I I .. . ............ HC
..... I 1 a - --
LO-f'I-90 'IVwwI)i'Ulil~
. ft
.. ~ ~ ~"" ~J j-
~ (! ~~
~ -t ~ t~ i~ U
f 1 J~ i4' H II f
w w U
';.c;::J.
r:::=:J
r_'-"::'l
'I.':,"':J
!I .!
!!II!
1-,.1
1...'___.:1
I-;-_J'
"-'.:-;,
.l---:-',~'I
:J:"::t
I"'-",l
,Ill!:
11'<..1
I:J.
I--.:_~j
r:::=:J
" ,:',,~,
'I" r ..
is,,!. .
-~
lJ!lJ Jl rH~m! I ~ '0113:lu"" I!!b
. hIt ,. , - AOru.s SOIUJ
Hi!i !thflJI . --
-....~ "Ih. · )t~~~~~, ..:::!
,-- inh! !.IIHI!H 1,1, -
--
-
.
.
.
.
. .
. . .
. .
.
. .
.
.
Z
<I
~
0.... .
CJ
I
W CJ
(")
. . . -P II
, f---j
\1J-
1//
)[// )
May21,2007
:r;'~>/~ ~r~_^:->~/~
(\1\/'1'\'\ l,,/\:yy"
MONTICELLO
Ms Kimberly Holien
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Re: Landmark Center - Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition
Development Stage PUD Plan Review Comments
City Planning Project No. 2007-016
Dear Ms Holien:
.
On May 14, 2007 the City of Monticello received a development stage PUD submittal for
Landmark Center in Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition. Upon receiving the plans the
Engineering and Public Works Departments reviewed them for conformance to the City's Plan
Requirements and Design Guidelines and respectfully offer the following comments:
Plan Sheet Ct.l
1. Provide two "ENTER ONLY" signs, one on each side of the entrance, for the one-way
drive aisle on the east side of the site.
2. Provide a "DO NOT ENTER" sign east of the exit lane at the northeast comer of the site.
3. Provide a "DRNE-THRU ONLY" sign west of the entrance lane at the northeast comer
ofthe site.
Plan Sheet Ct.2
1. If not connecting to storm sewer stub on south end of site either remove stub back to the
manhole or install a water-tight plug in upstream end of stub.
2. Revise directional arrows for storm sewer on south end of site. Currently shown going in
two directions from manhole.
3. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate. City will
provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
.
Plan Sheet Ct.3
1. Provide utility profiles at each utility crossing location to check for conflicts. Information
incomplete at present.
2. Provide insulation at storm sewer and watermain crossings per City Standard Detail
Plates 2005 and 2006.
3. Provide easements for sanitary manhole and downstream pipe near northeast comer of
site. Extend easement to Cedar Street right-of-way.
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831' (763) 295-27] l' Fax (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362' (763) 295-3170 . Fax (763) 27]-3272
Kimberly Holien
May 21,2007
Page 2 of2
.
4. All unused sanitary sewer and watermain service lines must be removed back to the main,
otherwise the developer will be responsible for maintaining all abandoned lines in the
future.
5. Construct sanitary sewer manhole as standatjd sampling manhole near northeast comer of
site per City Standard Detail Plate 3007.
6. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate. City will
provide in AutoCAD format upon request. I
Plan Sheet CI.4
1. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate. City will
provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
General Note
Provide striping and signing information in the plans. No information is currently
included. The City recommends using epoxy or poly-preformed striping for longevity
and reduced maintenance.
The City's Engineering Consultant, WSB and Associates, may provide additional comments.
Please call me at 763-271-3236 should you have any questions regarding any ofthe comments
above. .
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
~c)~
Bruce Westby, P .E. .
City Engineer
cc: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
John Simola, Public Works Director
Angela Schumann, Community Development Coordinator
Shibani Bisson, WSB and Associates, Inc.
Phil Elkin, WSB and Associates, Inc.
.
.
.
.
..
WSB
IUI\
Infrastructure. Engineering. Planning. Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763541-4800
Fax: 763541.1700
& Associates, Inc.
May 22, 2007
Ms. Kimberly Holien
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway
Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55442
Re: Landmark Center - Monticello Travel Center 2nd
City of Monticello Planning Project No. 2007-016
WSB Project No. 1627-75
Dear Ms. Holien:
We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the above-referenced project dated May 14, 2007 and
offer the following comments:
Plan Sheet Cl.l
1. There does not appear to be enough room for stacking cars at the drive through window
located at the northeast entrance.
2. Replace the proposed concrete bollards with a concrete island.
Plan Sheet C 1.2
1. Provide a detail of the curb section on the west property boundary.
2. The applicant needs to provide a drainage map detailing the drainage areas for each proposed
catch basin and the locations of existing catch basins are not identified on the plan.
3. Provide details of how the drainage directed off site is managed specifically, the northwest
entrance, north parking spaces and the south parking spaces.
Plan Sheet CI.3
1.
Show an overall site detail of the location of fire hydrants and access to the hydrants per the
fire department expectations.
2. Include details of how the sanitary sewer clean out will be protected from traffic loads.
3. It appears that there are a number of sanitary and storm sewer stubs which will not be used
with this project. Include a plan to abandon or remove these lines.
F. iAngelaSJ>/annilig Com"'issiOllllQQ7 PC AgendaiJ~"",l1"R.K Holie,,-052207.LCsilep!anRtt'kwdoc
.
.
.
Ms. Kimberly Holien
April 23, 2007
Page 2
Please contact me at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Phillip A. Elkin, PE
Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello
Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc.
F: 'AngelaS'PlanniMg COllllllisswn\2007 PC Age'ldaiJulle'LTR-K HoIi~tI-t)j)207-LClireplanRe<'iew_d<1c
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
13. Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Open and
Outdoor Sales, Open and Outdoor Storal!.e and Minor Auto Repair. Applicant:
Moon Motorsports (NAC).
BACKGROUND
Moon Motorsports is seeking approval to amend a Conditional Use Permit for
Outdoor Storage, Outdoor Sales, and Display and Light Auto Repair on Lot I, Block
I of the Otter Creek Crossing development. A Conditional Use Permit was
previously approved for the site in May 2006. This permit was extended in May 2007
for a period of one year. The subject site is approximately 5.25 acres in area and is
zoned B-4, Regional Business.
The original CUP was approved for a 6,400 square foot outdoor storage area, a
10,000 square foot test track, and a 28,000 square foot building. The amended plan
reduces the size of the proposed building to 24, 493 square feet. The outdoor storage
area has been increased to 7,325 square feet, and the test track has been eliminated.
Conditional Use Permit
The zoning ordinance makes the following requirements for the proposed uses:
.
Open and outdoor storage is permitted as a conditional use in the B-4 District,
provided that:
I. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right of way.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust..
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences.
Open or outdoor service sale is permitted as a conditional use in the B-4 District,
provided that:
I. Outside service sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is
limited to 30% of the gross floor area ofthe principal use. This percentage
may be increased as a condition of the conditional use permit.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of the right-of-view.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
.
Minor Auto Repair is permitted as a conditional use in the B-4 District, provided that
the following applicable requirements are met:
I. Regardless of whether the dispensing sale or offering for sale of motor fuels
and or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or business the standards and
requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply.
2. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall
not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
I
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance
of the lot.
3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building structure or plantings
shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
4. A minimum lot area of twenty two thousand five hundred 22 500 square feet
and minimum lot dimensions of 150 feet by 130 feet.
5. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be
installed.
6. A curb not less than six 6 inches above grade shall separate the public
sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas.
7. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source
oflight visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right of
way.
8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed.
9. Each light standard landscaped.
10. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement.
11. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be
minimized and shall be in compliance with the Sign Ordinance.
12. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
ANALYSIS
As indicated above, the revised site plan proposes a 24, 493 square foot building and
a 7,325 square foot outdoor storage area. A Conditional Use Permit for the proposed
use was approved in May of2006, subject to the following conditions:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
. 9.
The applicant shall provide design details of proposed fencing.
The applicant shall demonstrate a turning radius for trucks entering and
exiting the loading dock.
The applicant shall provide at least one additional space for handicapped
parking.
The outdoor storage area shall be covered with a Class V surface- curbing of
the outdoor storage area shall not be required. .
The landscape plan shall be modified to illustrate that each individual lighting
standard is landscaped.
The total area of five different product identification signs and one wall
business identification sign shall equal 100 square feet or less.
Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plans are subject to review
and comment by the City Engineer.
Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed pump islands shall also be
installed.
Revised parking calculations are to be provided to illustrate adequate
parking as noted.
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
Lot Requirements and Standards. The B-4 Zoning District does not have specific
area and building size regulations or setback requirements that would be applicable to
the site. However, minor auto repair uses require a minimum lot area of22,500
square feet as a conditional use. Minimum lot dimensions for this use are 150 feet by
130 feet. The site is consistent with the applicable performance standards for the use,
as outlined below:
Lot Area
Lot width
Lot len2th
Required
22,500 sf
150 feet
130 feet
Pro Dosed
228,690 sf
425.38 feet
539.5 feet
.
Outdoor Storage. The applicant has designated a site to the southwest of the
principal structure, approximately 7,325 square feet in area, to be used for outdoor
storage. The size of the outdoor storage area is 30% of the total area ofthe principal
building. This outdoor storage area has been increased from the 6,400 square foot
area proposed with the previously approved plan. The proposed site is in a location
that will not take up any area for required parking. It should be noted that side of the
property facing Chelsea Road is the front, and therefore the proposed outdoor storage
area is partially in the front yard of the site. It should also be noted that by covenant,
outdoor storage is not allowed in the Otter Creek development, which is across the
street from the subject site.
The applicant has indicated that the outdoor storage site be surfaced with conbit, a
crushed concretelbiturninous surface material. A Class V material was approved in
lieu of bituminous surfacing by the City in May 2006. As part of the previous
application, the applicant indicated that the outdoor storage area would only be used
to store crates that are waiting to be shipped. The applicant has now stated that the
outdoor storage area will be primarily for empty containers waiting for pick-up, and
new snowmobile/ATV aluminum trailers. The applicant has indicated that
occasionally some of the space may be used for new unit overflow when the
showroom and warehouse are full. The City Engineer has recommended that, if the
proposed material is found to be appropriate, the surface used for the outdoor storage
should be 100% crushed material to avoid dust problems. However, due to the
increase in intensity of the outdoor storage use, staff recommends that pavement or
bituminous be required as opposed to conbit for surfacing.
.
The outdoor storage area is required to be fenced and screened from the public right-
of-way and neighboring residential areas. No residential areas border the site. The
applicant has indicated that a fence will be constructed along the perimeter of the
outdoor storage site. As a condition of approval from the previous CUP, details on
the materials of this fence were required. The architectural site plan indicates a 6 foot
2 inch fence with HOPE lumber fence boards. Fences over six feet, such as the one
proposed, require a building permit. No outdoor storage of materials shall be allowed
outside of this fenced area.
3
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
Lighting proposed for the outdoor storage area is required to be hooded to prevent
light from spilling onto the public right-of-way. The photometric plan does not show
any footcandle readings at the perimeter of the outdoor storage area.
Outdoor Sales and Display. The total outdoor sales display area is limited to 30% of
the total area of the principal use. For the size of the building proposed, the applicant
is allowed 8,640 square feet of outdoor sales display area. The applicant has
illustrated five concrete boulder display pads outside of the principal structure. Two
display pads are to be located in the northeast corner of the site, one in the northwest
corner of the site, and two located on the west side of the site. These display pads are
only large enough to support one vehicle each, and will not exceed the maximum
allowed square footage and will not take up any area for required parking.
Parking. For retail stores and service establishments, the ordinance requires I
parking space for every 200 square feet of retail floor area, and I space for every 500
feet of storage area. In calculating the area of the building, 10 percent of the structure
is presumed to be reserved for hallways, restrooms, utilities and the like. The parking
requirement for the proposed use is estimated as follows:
Spaces Required
.
Retail: 10,800 sf
Service and Stora~e: 11,244 sf
Total Required:
54 spaces
23 spaces
77 spaces
A total of 80 parking stalls are proposed for the site, including four handicapped
accessible stalls. Therefore, the parking requirement for the site is satisfied.
Landscaping. The ordinance requires a minimum of one overstory tree for each 50
feet of site perimeter. The perimeter of the site is 1,930 feet. Said length requires the
applicant to provide 37 trees on the site. The applicant has satisfied this requirement
by providing 40 overstory trees on site, as well as several shrubs and perennials. The
applicant has provided the majority of the dense vegetation along the west property
line and in northeast corner of the site. Existing vegetation is located on the south
portion of the site, most of which will remain.
.
The City recognizes the value of interstate highway exposure to commercial and
industrial developers. The City also wishes to avoid the undesirable monotony of
fully exposed building sides and rears and wishes to provide natural visual variety to
the travelers on the interstate. Natural visual variety will alleviate the boredom for
travelers and will project a clean and pleasant image of the City. Commercial and
industrial developers oflots/parcels having substantial exposure to the interstate shall
be required to landscape/screen to provide 60% opacity year-round with at least 80%
of such screening to be of natural materials. The applicant has proposed dense
vegetation in the northwest and northeast corners of the site.
4
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
The applicant has oriented the building so that the back side of the building is facing
Chelsea Road. To improve the aesthetic quality of the site as visible from Chelsea
Road, staff recommends that the applicant provide additional plantings on the south
side of the east-west access drive to soften the appearance of the building. Staff also
recommends that additional plantings be provided adjacent to the fence surrounding
the outdoor storage area.
As a condition of allowing minor auto repair uses in the B-4 District, all lighting
standards shall also be landscaped. The landscape plan shall be modified to indicate
compliance with this requirement. In addition to the proposed plantings, the applicant
shall also be responsible for landscaping within the Chelsea Road boulevard. Staff
recommends additional overstory trees in this area.
Signage. For businesses in the B-4 District, a combination of wall signs and a
maximum of one pylon sign may be utilized for a maximum of 300 square feet of
signage per property. The applicant is proposing a single monument sign at the
entrance to the site, in lieu of a pylon sign, as well as wall signage. The face ofthe
monument sign is eight feet tall with a total face area of96 square feet.
.
In regard to monument signs, the ordinance allows the site one business identification
sign per street on which the property has legal frontage, and two product
identification signs on the same wall. The total maximum allowable sign area for any
wall shall be determined by taking 10% of the gross silhouette area of the front of the
building up to 100 square feet, whichever is less. In this case, the maximum
allowable sign area is 100 square feet. The approved CUP allowed five different
product identification signs and one wall business identification sign up to a total area
of 100 square feet or less.
The applicant is proposing four product identification signs and one business
identification sign, for a total area of 55.5 square feet. All signage proposed for the
site is within the parameters of the ordinance.
Access. A single access will be provided by a private drive off Chelsea Road, in the
southeast comer of the site. This 24-foot drive lane will accommodate two lanes of
traffic throughout the site. AIl internal drive lanes are proposed at 24-foot widths.
A loading dock is located on the southern end of the principal structure and is
accessed via a 45-foot drive lane. The width ofthis drive lane has been increased
from a 21 foot drive lane proposed with the original CUP. The increased drive land
width provides a more feasible turning radius for semis to enter and exit the site. The
primary loading dock is located on the east side of the building under the canopy,
accessible by a 20-foot drive lane.
.
The applicant has illustrated a future sidewalk along Chelsea Road for pedestrian
access. The site plan indicates that this sidewalk will be constructed by others.
However, construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk along entire south edge
5
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
of site shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Said sidewalk shall be within the
Chelsea Road right-of-way with the back of the walk one foot from property line.
Building Design. The proposed building will be constructed primarily of smooth
precast white panels. The entrance to the building will contain anodized composite
metal panels and a significant amount of glass. The building will be accented with
recessed accent stripes in light gray and a pre-fmished metal cap.
The building design has changed quite significantly over the design approved with the
original Conditional Use Permit. The amount of glass coverage on the front ofthe
building has been greatly reduced. Staff is also concerned with the lack of detail on
the back side ofthe building, facing Chelsea Road. Due to the exposure to Chelsea
Road, staff recommends that the applicant add additional features to break up the long
fayade. Staff recommends additional glass coverage and vertical elements to add
visual interest on the back side.
.
Lighting. The photometric plan illustrates light standards throughout the parking lot.
Readings at the property line on the east side of the site are as high as 3.4 footcandles.
The applicant has not illustrated any footcandle readings beyond the property line.
Staff recommends that the applicant extend the readings beyond the property line to
verifY that no light will spill onto adjacent properties.
Wall pack lighting is indicated on the building elevations. All wall pack lighting
shall be comprised of full cutoff fixtures to mitigate any glare.
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control. The City Engineer and consulting
engineer have reviewed the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control plan and
provided the following comments:
1. Revise grading and storm sewer design to prevent stormwater runoff along
west side of property from draining onto adjacent parcel.
2. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate.
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
3. The driveway entrance will need to use B618 curb and gutter to match the
Chelsea Road curb section.
4. The applicant should submit a drainage map detailing the drainage areas to
each catch basin and how much runoff is directed off-site. The applicant
should coordinate drainage to the west with the adjacent property owner.
5. The landscaping plan indicates that trees will be planted in an area along the
west property line that had previously been identified as preserved in the
grading plan. Please clarifY the activity in this area.
.
Utilities. The City Engineer and consulting engineer have reviewed the Utility Plan
and provided the following comments:
6
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
Provide easement for sanitary manhole and downstream sewer pipe near site
entrance. Provide easement to Chelsea Road right-of-way.
Provide a sediment and explosive waste trap for product preparation area
drain.
Provide separate water and sanitary sewer service lines for any area(s) that
will be split off in the future for a separate lot.
All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate.
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
Provide utility profiles showing each utility conflict area.
Insulate storm sewer and watermain crossings per City Detail Plates 2005 and
2006.
All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate.
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
Use DIP bends for watermain, not deflections, as the lines need to be locatable
vertically.
A minimum 18-inch separation will be required between utilities in all
locations where lines cross.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
.
Regarding the request for an amended Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage,
Outdoor Sales and Display, and Light Auto Repair for Moon Motorsports, the City
has the following options:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amended Conditional Use Permit for
Moon Motorsports to allow for Open and Outdoor Storage, Outdoor Sales
and Display, and Light Auto Repair, based on a finding that the proposed
use is consistent with the performance standards of the 8-4 District and
the conditions of approval, subject to the conditions outlined below.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amended Conditional Use Permit for
Moon Motorsports, based on a finding that the proposed use is not
consistent with the performance standards of the 8-4 District.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends approval of the amended Conditional Use Permit as presented,
subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. The revised plan for Moon
Motorsports proposes a smaller building, with a slightly larger outdoor storage area.
The test track area has been eliminated, and the access to the loading docks has been
revised to better accommodate truck traffic. The applicant has met the majority of
conditions cited for the previously approved Conditional Use Permit. As such, staff
recommends approval of the amended CUP, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z.
.
7
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
ExhibitJ:
Exhibit K:
Exhibit L:
Exhibit z:
.
.
Site Location Map
Site Plan
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan
Utility Plan
Architectural Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Floor Plan
Exterior Elevations
Lighting Layout
Color Elevations
Plan review comments from Bruce Westby, dated OS/21107
Plan review comments from WSB, dated OS/22/07
Conditions of Approval
8
Planning Commission Agenda- 06/05/2007
.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Moon Motorsports - Amended Conditional Use Permit
I. The landscape plan shall be modified to illustrate that each individual lighting
standard is landscaped.
2. The applicant shall provide additional plantings on the south side of the east-west
access drive and adjacent to the fence surrounding the outdoor storage area.
3. The applicant shall provide landscaping within the Chelsea Road boulevard,
specifically overstory trees.
4. Pavement or bituminous surfacing shall be required for the outdoor storage area in
lieu of conbit.
5. The photometric plan shall be revised to verify that readings at the property line
will not exceed one footcandle.
.
6.
All wall pack lighting shall be comprised of full cutoff fixtures to mitigate any
glare.
7. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing a 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along entire south edge of site within Chelsea Road right-of-way with
back of walk I-foot from property line.
8. The applicant shall add additional aesthetic features to the back side ofthe
building, facing Chelsea. Said features include, but are not limited to, additional
glass coverage and vertical details.
9. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as
outlined in the memo dated OS/21/07 prepared by Bruce Westby and the
consulting engineer, as outlined in the memo from WSB dated OS/22/07.
10. A building permit shall be required for the proposed fence.
II. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed pump islands shall also be installed.
.
9
.
!"
I .-
, )'.,
I '\\
I 1,\
I I i \,
11I1 ! \,\
I I"~
I II
,\
,
,
I \
I
,
,
I
I
I
I! I
I IV
IJ
il ,
11.1/
f~ f
':!I hi
, ' I'
" j'i
I!
I I II
I i,
L,N
,
I
\
\
I
I
/("e".i.',-'..'-"" ~i(.",~..,""
, ("
I
\
I
\,
\
I
\
,
I
\
\
\
\
:l~
;.~
=..
~~
~~
...
=
.....
=
~
'i=
=
=
~
\
\
~
\\
\\
\
"
\
\
,
,
I
I
.,
,
\\
\\
\ \
'\'
I
II
Ii
i'.
I'
.,\
\\
Zoil\\\
.. ;1 \ \
"E~ \ \
,~ .. \ \
~! \
~" \
'~ii '
~f \
z
t
11
~
.....
~
~
~
11
~
~
~
Hltll Jj filii "I' I
I'l,!l ~ lutl!l!
;.!lll . ~llil!11
_ dUll j! lnnllld
::
~
e
~
o
,..
~
."
~
i.Ul:, I.. .. ^V~
a3^i3J3~
YJ.OSIIlNND'( 'OTDJIDLLN:OK
avOH vtIIB"lIIIHO
SJjHOdSHOJjOW
NOOW
-
-..:..:.;:
"''9BI1_~
_ I .. . . :-: J.aIHE
LOO;'; 'L .x VW c
Hlt'I' Jl flll"l' ~
Hil,l, ~ IMlh! a
f"l i : HIll
_ ffini j J !Unlltd
Y~'OTEIIDliLNOJ'i
avOH VB8'mHO
S-LHOdSHO-LOW
NOOW
-
~
"'-...0._":':
--
I -- J
- '" -:;;:;:
LOOi; · L X VJ\I
~
~I~ f I
r ! ~
dl;
I i I I
im ~ a
I !
~~ .~~ II
<( J, i ~
I 'r a3Je ~
~
~ ~ uf4~ . ~ I.~
I Ii i il -~Zj jM Ih~ Ii.
fj i ~..! ~ u g~1 ~.f~
i[ j[ ~ f~J o:::);:)w,. ii~: g~i~
~~C:j~! ~IP
! , i.'. _ (f)U')<1 > a r a
i I~~r m~ hli ;!~
" grn If.Ul:''1I
Ul J~!i .
!!! .SSI~.E
~ -= -....== - ~
.IOOIHOlft' --. .......,.".
!I I !II !I I lid If I; ~\
If i ,t! ~, IIII~~ ~~'
~ ~~1 II ~.llin ~
L_) I: I ! ~ j d i ;n! ~
I ru u ~ ~ ~ ~mml 17'~,!
Ii I 10' I tJ;" ~ ~ltU~~1 rt1
d n ~ i I WI.21~~! '. :
It!111 j!el I! .)111 'III,I,UII;, n
1llltd!! 11,3j; jl ~ni~ i I Iii f!!j d Ii' lll~" I t] II "I' Ii ~f"t J,q Jill j !fIll]
::~:~! ~ ~:~:~~:~~ ~~1~~~!.~1~ ~~J.:~"~~~ ,~ ~~ ~~:~~ :
III . t I I.d.i I I .. I. ~ i I I I ~ I~~ 1 I l. I __ I I. I
i
f
lli~..
,- '~,
~I" .
~
~ ;;!J
~ ~ I f:Ji
II I r.ii
u ~1l!1I
!! ~i liim
,
"-
"-
/
/
/
I
" ~ fi~mi I YiL08:IlNND'i 'OTlDIOLLNO:N pI LIlI~I'::
--- ....--... Illl!l ~l avOR VDi'IllIBO j~ DIDT~
- ----- IjiUl1ll! SwHOdSHOwOW 1'1~"';:
-...- -.. -- ~l ].I ;
"ONI.N/7HOI;I _WIt' ftt1lil II NOOW II 11-": :!IJ
If 1.. ,.Ill It : -
1 1
1!!llr
Ildll
I11111
LOO(; 'L .x vw
D
o
l<
q,
,0.
','
,.
<,
~~..
...
lv
1..../
, '
~
h
"
.'
','
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
/
o
-'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ w~1
/
/
~ 9
Ii I .
. I;
. ~
II .
~ Ii
~ ~
;1 Ii Ii n < 11U
h~
I d . ~
I j. il ~ !I
"
0 .
U
!~
<;, --
~t. ....)
~l '" .
~
l(lftiili I
, i iiih'llllt!
I .1Il It .
It!,'
___ ___... 15111 j
- ----- I'"
-~.-'II'
":JNI~--.=-V t~ ]1,
_ hdi
y~ 'OT::CIIOLLNO:n
avQHvmnmm
S~HOdSHO~OW
NOOW
1\
I I
II ! II
I~dl!
111111
[II.''''
. .~;; -\'\'
~~I
I;
II
I ·
I Ii
I ! ~
! III
E)@
d
~II.I il Ii
s · ~l IIi l
Ili!11 ~II II
,
'-
,
"
'''~/'-'""
(...-----._~'
"'""::
In -=
~
_ dU -:;
LOO~ 'L A VJi\I
; h ii ! I
I i~ ini ~I n~ I~ i
· l~ I'. i~ I
~I~ 1;1 1~li II. l~i. I
~~! ~~I ~Ii! ~II
I:j~' "~
~ I ~
~ 1'- I~ ~
I I . ': ~
i. l!llll~
III ~m II
~II .~ ~!I ~
~~ d.
~ if I
~ ~.!
!:! ~i~i
~
W
~
"' ~"~
~~
,.el'~' PI''!' I y.r..ostDlNlJ'l'OTIlIIDIlLNOl'll: m -=
--- ---... Jtll ; Iflll/! OVOll VlI1B"IlIIBO -~
- ----- iliHl11ti SwHOdSHOwOW (l
---.- '!lIi .' ~
"ONI "NnHOII ~ NOOW _Ii n --~ 'I
huli ! !.11l It : ...:= N'i
I Is I'
~~~I ~ I ! II i!
~g!~ i i:1
~ i
'l~~ ~
~ iil~ ~
EO ~, Cl
~ ~
0
I:
if ~
f ::;
LOO(; · L X. VW
-
.a..... 1.1'".11
-
. .
i'j
Iii! In
I. .n
;-I I I
I~ !
!. d l!/
III1 II III
!. ib
ill
ell
Is I
Ii I
0-
i
'il
!II
I';
Il'~
nil
Ii!
ijl
I~
II
II,
II ~ I
I
i I;
II
II " ~;
, ~,
!! .
..
~
i~
I ~
ow ~i ~
~
III
B id
Cl
;!;
~
;illi~ I
d ;atJ I'
~ m 'I
I,
~ tl
> i'
~ , !
;( . ~,
! ,I ,f ,I ~I ~,
i ~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~.
; ~i ~i ~i ~i ~i
i e~ ~; !!~ ~~ ~;
iim,l Ii
iil!I' Iii
iifiill'n
.....~.
It!,'
--- --... stll j
- ..---- t, ,
-...--.-- -',
"ONI -- -,.. I' JI.
- _ lid,
~ f~ftjJ'lp
!JUlllj'
. W'Jiilll'
v~ 'OTllIID.I.LNOI'I
avOH vm:rmmo
S.:LHOdSHO.:LOW
NOOW
"'-
p: -.=i
.. ~ (Hl
_ dU -.:;; ~
LOOi; 'L XVF
I
~
-
:; I,' ~f
! - -, G5
~I' -, '-'5 , I, S ·
.; li~ll.e (Ie's I
i., - ------ --/"Ii'; II , I Iii II :
o~~:: III II fir I i, III II I
.1. e l!> l!>\!l @) l!> e
I i~' Ii
:: ~~. ~ig
~I ej f! ~'I
If '" rhll!~
If!
:n T
~I
E
~
I.
f ~
I~ :
:eli
elf ~I
~ ii
~ ~l
I
il
)t'1,
"
,1.. l
\;Yit;~
"'''' Jj PI"" I v~ 'OTJIIIDLLN:o:n -::
'1,11 I JI .Ilt! avOHVIIIB"lllIH:J -.,
J hl' . --
fjihl'!,t SJiHOdSHOJiOW "'~
'jihl · NOOW _I, ~~
- f I i J dllll: , . '=
L.OO(; · L. .x VW 4
;.
e
~ i
" I
" ~
~ I
~ ~~f
; ~!f
~
-=
~'OT'DIDIJ.N:OJli -'.
"'''I J~ fill"'; I -
avOR vmnmro ..,~.:.;:
Il'il ~ d.:1l1j S-LHOdSHO-LOW ~
I IiI' . ~
f"l I . nt/I i NOOW _I. ~ .~~
iI,lihlh , ,
fHm j J [,00(; '[. AVW
_.
.1:-~
\~"
;.
I ~
.w.... "l!l!tl!l! ~
laa...!!!.I!! ~
..
ll!
i
-'
~
u
~~
iii!
.. .
~
!,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ I
/ / /
il
J'
,~
~~,
~
~''\.
, ,
, I
, -
r
~
>
i i
I
t
.
r
I
t
f-- '- '-- -
\
;.
r-
~ III I'
~-=
-- \H
I r ;.
I ~ l
,
-
f-- ~l
I;;"
-~ l
It
All
Ii
I-
t I l
,-
~
-~ l
"'''I J l Jill"!' I VJ..OSII[NNI)it 'OTIlIIOLLNON --=
't,!! ~ 111!1I1! avOH vmr.mm:o ~
I hi' . ij'UI'I,i S~HOdSHO~OW "''ftIIC.~
fi1hl . NOOW ~.:: NV
f" l _I. ~
- _ I I I I.1ll It : . . -=
LOOc; 'L.xVW l
~ ~ ~ r~f ~ ~ ~ ~
-.. _.ft
-- -. _.. _.. -. -. --
- -
.M...1. ...... 01",.. _..,~
:=- =-- c =.=1-: ~ ~-'f=Ie:------ -"""21- ==-.::.: i>------= -.=
- - -! --: ~ ~----- m ~~-~~---=- !
I \ I I I I I
I I I t I I
,
I
I I 'I
I I I
" ,
I I I
- - -- - - -- --<-- - - - -- - --<-- - --- - --. - - -- - -'----8
I I
, ,
I I
i ~ 1 i
I : : I
J\ ! I l I
,~ I I I'
,,-, - -----+ -ml ---+------~f__. ------I--G
'.:\' I
: ! ~= ---=~ ! ~ & !
r---.:..-- __ ~i .. -".1 ""'P
'" ,-. !d -.JF--r I ,-', ..,. -. -',-'1 .'.' I -- I
. --::; ~ ~ I ~r. t f\ l I ,- ,
f~ ~": I !~ 111 W~r 1"lf A .,u
: > \.. "7 l' I~ ~ J~ 'C ,Ji" :"if -..
- ~ui- I: - :1.~" ~,~T~-,,~,~:;-R
: :' 1f "'~N_' ~ "A'u'
: ;. I -." -. .,' ~."'- r";- '\ 1 \J j -; 1::
., '~r.I ' ." /-', I IgIl,~'I:
:f'l.-S): ~ f I ILl' ~ '! % ~ II S ~a ':
-, "- H--
Ii. ~ /" I L.....u:
Illel ~ / I I : I: :'i L I I
--f-- -----f--
- -f- - - - - -. -- f-----
--f-----------
~
>
--@
~ l
~
~
,~.
lam Jj PR"!' I VJ.OEIIl.blND'i 'OTIlIIDI~ON --:
Ii ,III! avOHVIIlS"IlIIDO -=:.;:
lilli' . ijii:I'ltl SLLHOdSHOLLOW ..,~..:.::
filill - NOOW ~..:: 8.!
f ~"lI :II
- _ I I J ,.lUll. _I. , . '=
-.
-- ....
.1",.&
,~:,
LOOc; 'L .x vw
Il U 'Il Ii U ;u u 1
; ~ I .
I I H I! I I I
I
<ID- -.--- I
I I
Ii I I
I I I
I I I
I
I~ I I
I I I
I I I
I ! I
@-- 0-- I @-- .'
I~
(\ n~~ II~
;= - .h~ r
~ ~
w w
-' w -'
W l j!~ W l
~ ~ r.
2 ~ ...
W ~ !h
N '"
0-- !~
fl
~~
0-
@-- .
@--
@- 0-- @-
I I
I I
l ! I I
I I
oil H I I
~ I 1"3\ I I
..,
.,
.' .1~.~
',~~
..
""'IlIJl....~
om, 'EMmf1DN3 srmTIM
z
o
!;(
~~
W~
1-....
~~
W
"'Ill
Hl!'l , ~ f1~"I' !
II..! 'I~: f =
mil' ~ ~ j,..lltj,
- i1! - ~ I:~I i
hUi 11 ~ !lIIlIIU~
VIOS3"''''lfi'0113::>Ut<<:l~ III lOOl:-to-:
'O~V3S13H:J ~
SHIOdSClOIO~ ..:::i
NOO~ _1m .::l:
--'=
LOOl:
II,
/ / n
j!;I j
~~;Kc-';t:;;;;~,;;
! '1'\1 {,{' /'1"i'\'~\/'
--"'''''', --=
I~I<-
May 21,2007
MONTICELLO
Ms Kimberly Holien
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Re: Moon Motorsports
Amendment to CUP Plan Review Comments
City Planning Project No. 2004-066
Dear Ms Holien:
On May 7,2007 the City of Monticello received an amendment to CUP submittal for Moon
Motorsports. Upon receiving these plans the Engineering and Public Works Departments
reviewed them for conformance with the City's Plan Requirements and Design Guidelines and
respectfully offer the following comments:
Plan Sheet C1.1
1. Construct 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk along entire south edge of site within Chelsea
Road right-of-way with back of walk I-foot from property line (currently shown as
"future sidewalk"; construct with project). Include City Detail Plate 5008 in plans.
Plan Sheet C1.2
1. Revise grading and storm sewer design to prevent stormwater runoff along west side of
property from draining onto adjacent parcel.
2. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate. City will
provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
Plan Sheet C1.3
1. Provide easement for sanitary manhole and downstream sewer pipe near site entrance.
Provide easement to Chelsea Road right-of-way.
2. Provide a sediment and explosive waste trap for product preparation area drain.
3. Provide separate water and sanitary sewer service lines for any area(s) that will be split
off in the future for a separate lot.
4. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate. City will
provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
Plan Sheet C1.4
1. Provide utility profiles showing each utility conflict area.
2. Insulate storm sewer and watermain crossings per City Detail Plates 2005 and 2006.
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362. (763) 295-3170 . Fax (763) 271-3272
y
Kimberly Holien
May21,2007
Page 2 of2
.
3. All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate. City will
provide in AutoCAD format upon request.
General Note
Provide striping and signing information in the plans. No information is currently shown.
The City's Engineering Consultant, WSB and Associates, may provide additional comments
under separate cover. Please call me at 763-271-3236 should you have any questions regarding
any of the comments above.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
~WLU~
Bruce Westby, P .E.
City Engineer
cc:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
John Simo1a, Public Works Director
Angela Schumann, Community Development Coordinator
Shibani Bisson, WSB and Associates, Inc.
Phil Elkin, WSB and Associates, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
..
WSB
1'3L-
Infrastructure. Engineering. Planning. Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763541-4800
Fax: 763541-1700
& Associates. Inc.
May 22, 2007
Ms. Kimberly Holien
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway
Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55442
Re: Monticello Professional Center
Concept Plan Review Comments - Partial Site Development plan
City of Monticello Planning Project No. 2007-016
WSB Project No. 1627-
Dear Ms. Holien:
We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the above-referenced project dated April 30, 2007 and
offer the following comments:
STREETS
1. All entrances and exits to the site must meet the City of Monticello width and turning radius
requirements.
2. Revise the entrance configuration to the easterly most parking lot to distinguish it from the
existing street section.
UTILITIES
1. Sanitary sewer service is not currently available to this site. Existing city service utilities are
located on the south side of Wright County Highway 75 and the existing railroad. The
applicant would be required to jack service lines under the railroad along with obtaining the
necessary permits from the BNSF railroad.
2. Existing utilities such as storm sewer and fiber optic lines would need to be protected during
construction.
3. The watermain should be looped with a connection off the northwest end of the site from the
existing 12-inch watermain off Meadow Oak Avenue.
4. Connection of service lines to the site would require a permit from Wright County and may
require jacking under the roadway.
GRADING. DRAINAGE. AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
I. A storm water management plan will be required in which storm water ponds treat all new
impervious surfaces and are connected to a controlled discharge rate, which does not increase
existing discharge rates. This plan should incorporate connections to each pond and wetland
as there is only one existing discharge pipe.
F:,AngelaS'Plamling Filest2006'2006.028.&hrwiderProjClrILTR-K Ho/ien-iJ51207_silepulI1parrillllRevkw.dm:
.
.
.
Ms. Kimberly Holien
April 23, 2007
Page 2
2. A wetland delineation report will be need to be submitted and approved by the City on the
size of the existing wetland.
3. The proposed storm water management system will be required to incorporate all City,
County and MnDOT storm water currently managed through the site.
4. A grading plan will need to remove the existing ditch system, replace it with a curb and
gutter storm water collection system.
5. The applicant should provide the City with a tree protection plan.
6. A berm may be required by MNDOT to block noise from I 94.
Please contact me at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Phillip A. Elkin, PE
Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello
Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc.
F'!AngelllSIPlaMing Files',1006110Q6.028.Schnelde'ProjCmLTR-K 1101ien-0511();.sirepllI''fNJrtillllReview.doc