Planning Commission Minutes 06-07-2005MINLITF,S
NF,GULAR MI+.F,TING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JLJNE 7th, 2005
6:UU P.M
Commissioners: Dick Fric, Rod Dragsten, [,loyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison: Glen Posusta
Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittrnan - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and noted a full quorum of the
Commission.
2. Approval of the minutes of the special Planning Commission nleetin~_held 'l~uesday, May 23rd
2005,
C'ornmissioner Spal-t~ made the correction that City Planner Steve Grittrnan was not in
attendance at the special meeting.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPAR"I'G '1~0 APPROVE, THE MINUTES O1~' "I'HL, SPL;CIAL
MEETING OF MAY 23`x, 2005, WITH CORREC"PIONS AS NOTED.
MO"PION SL;CONUL;U I3Y COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MO"PION CAIZIZIED.
3. Consideration of adding items to the_a erg
Commissioner Spartz requested an update on drainage issl.les in Carlisle Village as item 16.
4. (.ItlZell COllllllellts.
NUN E.
5. Continued Public Hearin r -Amendment to Ordinance for O en and Outdoor Stora 7c
Applicant: City of Monticello
. ("hairlnan Frie indicated that staff had recommended tabling the item until the ad hoc
committee reviewing the amendment had an oppol-tunity to meet and come forward with a
recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
6. Continued Public Hearin -Consideration ofa re nest for a Conditional tJse Permit for O en
and Outdoor Stora 7c for the stora ~e and rental of vehicles in a B-3 Hi hwa Business
District. applicant: Enterprise Kent-a-Car
Grittman provided the staff report, illustrating the revisions made to the applicant's proposed
plan. At the May meeting of the Commission, the amount of required parking was an issue
for this proposal. ~1'he applicant and the property Owner have met to find relocated space for
the parking. Grittman stated that with the revisions as shown, parking requircrttcnt would be
satisfied. Staff recommends approval with those modifications.
Spartz asked Grittman which ot`the two options City staff prefers. Grittman stated that either
option meets the requirements. "The option chosen is up to the applicant.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Rick Mendlik, representing Enterprise Rent-a-Car, made hirrtsclfavailable for questions.
l learirtb no corrtrrtent, Chairman Frie closed the public Itcaring.
Dragsten asked Mendlik if the rental facility would ever have -nore titan 8 cars on the site.
Mcrullik indicated that they would not. If there were a circumstance under which there were
more, enterprise wot.lld rttakc arrangements for the extra. cars to he located on the account
properties in town.
Dragsten restated his concerns regarding the n(tlnbcr of cal-s parked on the street.
Suchy asked if the trailer currently parked on the property would stay in the driveway on a
pCYlTlaltent baslS. JOltll JOhnSOn, property owner, stated that the trailer comes and boss.
Suchy asked if there would be a problem with the additional VCIIICIe storage In real'. JOhnnOn
indicated that it woul(1 not present a problem in most circumstances.
MO"PION I3Y COMMISSIONF,R HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CIJP, BASED ON FINDINGS 'I~IIAT TI IF, RF,LOCATEU S"1'ORAGE ARF,A
WITFLIN TI-IE EXISTING FENCE WILL NO"f INTERFERF. WITH '1'I-lL USE OF TILE
SI'L'L, NOR WI"I'H "TI-IL'fRAFF1C ON THE ADJACEN"I' STRF.F.T.
MO'1"ION SECON[7F,D T3Y COMMISSIONER SPAItT,7,. MOTION CARRIL;D.
Contin~,ied Public Hearin; -Consideration of a_request for a. SirTtple Subdivision to create two
conformin ~ un tatted lots in a PIM Performance Zoned-MixedGonin 7 District
A~plc~tnt:. Antoinette 13reiwick
(;rittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicants are necking a simple subdivision that
woul(i essentially be a re-st.lbdivision of existing lots. Both of the resulting lots would meet the
required lot standards for the I'GM district. Grittman indicated that Lot 2 would become available
for Iltrttta' devcloprnent at which time the applicant will have to bring a full development. plan
ti~rward.
• Grittman stated that staff s primary concern was whether the legal description for the new lots
would be acceptable to Wright C"ounty. Grittman reported that the applicant has indicated that
Planning Commission Minutes 0(~/07/OS
they had met with the County, who had provided assurance that the legal is acceptable. Grittrnan
. staled that staft~rccommend approval of the sirt,ple subdivision wish the condition of Wright
County's acceptance and recording of the legal description of the plat.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing
Leslie Pratt, 514 Elm Street, addressed the Cot,~r~r,ission. Pratt asked where the access point for
the proposed property would be located. Pratt stated that there is a significant problem in the area
with traffic rot stopping at the Elrn and 6`I' corner. Pratt expressed her concern that further
development on this site may exacerbate this problem. O'Neill stated that there are plans to
extend 7`~' Street. and that will help alleviate the traffic in the area. O'Neill stated that currently,
the best way to handle that probla„ is to bring ii to the attention of the Sheriff's Department.
Dragster asked if it is possible for the south lot line to just continue to the back of the entire
parcel (;rittman stated that in that case, the back portion of the lot would become unusable; this
lot line orientation allows more usable land for the other lot. Dragster explained that in many
cases, that "t7ag" area. has a tendency to get lost in terms of platting and legal.
!-lilgart corrected that the lot area would be 44,007 square feet gather than 440,007 noted in
the staff report. I lilgart asked if there plans to put a single home on the larger lot, or whether it
was planned to be a future subdivision with multiple homes.
The applicant, Antoinette Breiwick, 6107 Wildwood Way, and property owner Ronald Ruff came
forward to provide fi.trtl,er information to the Commission. Breiwick stated the larger lot would be
sold, with the intention that it would be combined with other parcels for development.
• Frie asked if Breiwick and Rt.tfif ttrderstood that if further development is proposed, they WIII need
to come back to the Con,rnission with the appropriate plam,ing and building review information.
"1'he applicants confirmed.
MOTION f3Y COMMISSIONER IIILGART'I'O RECOMMEND ANPROVAL OF THE
SIMPLIi: SUBDIVISION, BASF;I) ON A FINDING THAT THE I'RC)PC)SI~;I)
SUBDIVISION CREATES TWO Fi7LLY CONFORMING LOTS IN THE I'lM
DISTRICT, SIJI3,Ik?C"I TO WRITTEN VERIFICA'I'l(.)N OF LEGAL PARCEL
S'I~A'I'US BY WRIG[ I"I' COUNTY.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UKAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
Public Hearing -Consideration to amend the Monticello Gonin€~ Ordinance relating to tilin
rocedures for formal a lications of Preliminar Plat ("onditional Use Permits Planned
Unit Developments and Variances, and to amend the ordinance to dcCne Simple Subdivisions
and the application process related to Simple Subdivisions
Applicant: City of Monticello.
Frie reported that staff reannmended continuing the item to the next meetinb of the Con,r,issior.
MO"PION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINI_1['I'HE RF,(11.1F,ST FOR
CONSIDERATION TO AMLNU THE MONTICF,LLO 7,ONING ORDINANCE RELATINCr
• "I'O FILING PROCEDURF,S FOR FORMAL APPLICATIONS OF PRF,LIMINARY PLAT,
CONUI'I"ZONAL, USL; PF;RMITS, PLANNF,D UNIT DEVELOPML;N"I'S AND VARIANCES,
AND TO AMf:NU THE ORDINANCE. TO DLI~INL' SIMPLE SUBDIVISIONS AND'I'HL;
a
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/US
APPLICA'I~ION PROCESS RF.[.,A"I'ED TO SIMPLE SCI6DIVISIONS.
. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART, MOTION CARRIED.
9. Pt.tblic Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for a Conditional Use Permit for a S ecial Home
Occu anon allowinU for an in-home hair care salon in an R-2 Zonin District.
Applicant: Tom and Kristy Brion
Patch reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant requests a Conditional tlse Permit
fir a special home occupation permit to allow hair care salon services at her home, located in
an R-2 district, at 339 East 4`I' Street.
Patch stated that the proposed t.tse and associated operation is similar to other (.tses allowed by
special permit. Patch explained that the applicant has indicated that the salon will be a one-
client operation, with a single station. 7~Iac salon will have no other employees. Patch stated
that as it appears that the use proposed is no different than other home occupation uses
allowed and that the use will meet all of the code requirements, staff is recommending
approval of the CIJP.
Chairman Frio opened the public hearing. Applicant Kristy Brion, 339 Fast 4'~' Street, made
herself available for questions.
Dragsters asked Brion about proposed hours of operation. Brion stated that it would most likely be
and Monday through Friday, 9AM to 8 PM by appointment. I~rie asked the applicant to confirm,
as it will be put. into the record for the permit. O'Neill stated that he believed the code allowed
such activity until 10 PM. Brion stated that hours would then be 9AM to 9 PM, Monday through
}Friday.
DragSten COnfll'mcd Wlth Brion that she woi.lld have only 1 chair.
Suchy asked where the entrance to the salon would be. Brion stated that the entrance would be on
New Street.
Frie asked if Brion had applied before. Brion stated that she had applied, but had not moved
forward with the request at that time.
M01"ION k3Y SPARTZ RF.COMMENL) APPROVAL OF TH1=; CONDI'}~IONAL USL'
PERMIT FOR A SPECIAL, HOME O("CUPATION FOR AN IN-HOME HAIR CARE
SALON L3ASED UN '1'}IE FINDING TI-IAT'}'HE PROPOSED USE l5 CONSIS"LENT
WITH THE 5'1'ANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE SPECIAL HOME, OCCUPA"PION
SF,C'l lON OF THE MONTICF,LLO ZONING ORDINANCE, StJB.IEC l' TO TH}~
FOLLOWING CONDI~['IONS:
a) The salon maintain only one chair.
b) The salon operate Monday through Friday only.
c) The salon operating hot.lrs will be 9AM - 9 PM.
MOTION SECONDF,D BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
I~'rie asked if they sho(.tld add conditions on signage or lighting. Patch responded that special
home occilpations are limited in terms of lighting and signage. They would be as required by
ordinance.
4
Planning Commission Minutes O(~/07/05
• 10. Public Hearin :. -Consideration of a re nest for a Conditional [1se Permit for a Planned Unit
Develo . ITtent for the Jefferson at Monticello develo meat an a roximatel 875 acre
develo meat consistin ~ of a roxinlatel 2700 residential units over 5 I S acres 328 acres of
cornmunit ro ert /o en space and 32 acres ofcomrnercial develo meat. A licant: I Icrita e
Develc)pnl,ent
Grittman introduced the item, stating that. Heritage Development has been working on their
dcveloprnent plan for' some time. 'T'hey have met with staff and held two public meetings to gatllcr
input and direction in developing the plan. They have made a formal application for concept stage
PL1D, which is the first step in the City's formal review process for what is a very large project for
the city.
Grittman stated that there are a number of applications in order for this project to proceed,
including a Comprcllensive Plan Amendment. Grittman explained that the comp plan 11as guided
the area for industrial, low density and open space uses. Grittman stated that the changes that
I leritage is requesting would redesignate the entire area in terms of land use and that the project
requires a significant amount of infirastructure improvement.
Due to the size and complexity of the proposed plan, Grittman reported that staff had prepared a
significant report. Grittman stated that as a result. of the anto(.u1t of rnatcrial to he reviewed artd
staft s outlining of issues within the report, the applicant has asked for continuation. Grittman
stated that while the applicant has requested tabling, it is still important to introduce the basic
concept of the pr~jeci to the Commission in order to facilitate an understanding of issues and
discuss the issues tllal impact a recommendation,
`T'he development plan proposed retlects approximately 2600 units over an 890 acre site, with
Silver Springs Golf Course representing a sigrtiCcant part of that area. The applicants have
indicated that the course would be remodeled. It is the intention of the ~1p17IICallt that YCde5lgnlrlg
of the course would occur while building residences.
Grittman noted that a little less than 1900 units are shown as attached housing. With that noted,
Grittman stated that the first. question For the Commission should be the comprehensive plats
issue. Identifying whether the proposed uses arc acceptable will assist the developer in designing
the plat to that ideal.
Grittman stated that other primary considerations inclt.lde the extensive infrastructure need to
serve the dcvelopnteni in terms of cost and maintenance, alld tI1C basic increase in popt.llation.
Another significant issue is marketability. Grittman noted that it`tlle City is going to he involved
in coordinating and maintaining the infrastructure, it will need an understanding of 11ow the City
will pay for the improvements once ii is developed.
Grittman referred back to the land use issues, stating that the current plan shows only 10% of the
Slllgle fa1111Iy IotS at hale R-1 standards. The balance oftlle single family lots arc at sizes Icss than
that, and when coupled with the significant a171pL111t OfattaCl1ed units, illustrates a signifcant
departure front what the City has expressed in terms of housing t~tix.
Anotllcr issue noted by Grittman was the hig11 ncnnber of units without access to amenities such as
wetlands and golf cotu~se. Stafif's concern is if the central housing component is intended to be
hlgh-eI1Cl based on this exposure, I1pW WIII the cOllcept WOCk WIthOUt the expOSLIrC.
Planning Contrllission Minutes OC/07/05
Grittman stated that the plan also reflects a large trade-otf of industrial and commercial land for
high-density residential development. The developers have indicated that they would rely on the
land north of Orchard Road for industrial. Grittman stated that while that play be reasonable, the
Commission will still need to discuss this shift.
Lastly, Grittman identified the developer's proposed phasing as a potential issue. The concept
proposed relies on phasing in of one of the primary arnenitics, the golf course, while expecting to
build a significant amount of housing prior to tina.lizing the cocn~se. Grittman stated that if the
course is to be a primary amenity for the development, how call the City be assured that the
amenity will be completed.
Grittman conlnlented that each of these issues poses questions that the Plartlling Commrssion al1d
Council will need to consider and respond to as part ot`arly comprehensive plan amendment arul
recommendation. Grittlllan noted that the staff report addresses all of these issues in detail. As a
result, Grittman explained that the request to table is a good one, as it will enable staff and the
developer to review the plan in greater detail and provide further follow-up. It will also allow the
Commission to digest the 2S page report and understand tllc implication of both the project and
report.
brie asked Grittman how the Collunissior, could justify only a 3(1-day continuation in light of all
oftlle significant questions raised. Grittman stated that they do not expect a fully revised plan
within 30 days, br.rt it is hoped that the City and developer would have some of the major
questions answered in terms of land use and whether the developer can move ti~l•Ward with the
concept plan. Grittman noted that signilicant changes to the current plan will result in a new
application.
Frie stated that the statf report contained a finding of tact to suppol-t a recommendation tier denial
of the concept plan. Frie noted that this document clearly outlined that the proposed project is
inconsistent with the City's comprehensive in terms of the balance of housing rnix, industrial and
commercial land availability, and density. }Frie noted that if nothing else, Ile wcnlld Ilke It on tllc
record and stl-essed that for all future developments, the developers will need to follow the
comprehensive plan. Frie I-ecornmended that developers who do not elect the comp plan should
not bring their items to the Commission.
Frie requested that public have an opportunity to comment. Grittman recommended that the
comments might hest he made generally, rather than talking about details that may change.
Grittman responded to Fric's comment on the comprehensive plan COl,lpdtlblllty issues. The
developer did understand that they would he requesting a departure from the plan. They 11avc the
right to request an amendment to plan. Grittman noted that staff had requested that if the
developer was going to make a comprehensive plan anlcndnlcnt request, they should bring a plan
forward. That request was made so that Conlnlission and staff could get an ide-a of the scope of
the amerldnlent. However, Grittman highlighted that it is always the City's right to deny the comp
plan amendment.
1'rie noted that each Commissioner has a list of questions related to the staff report.
Frie asked one person to speak for the general public in the area. of the development. Frie stated
. that he undel-stood that 1 leritage was going to elect with the general public and inquired Whether
that had taken place.
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
Jim Moore, 2169 120`x' Street, addressed the Commission. Moore stated that the developers had
visited his house with other neighbors. While Moore stated that while he still isn't happy with the
design of the plan, the developer has shown a willingness to work with neighbors. Frie asked if
there would he another meeting between the developers and neighbors. Moore reported that it had
been discussed, although nothing had been formally set up. Frie asked if Moore was speaking on
behalf of all the residents of Devron Greens. Moore stated that while each property owner might
have different issues, for the most part they stand as a group.
Posusta agreed that this item should he continued. Posusta stated that he believes that he speaks
for the majority of the Council in that the plan seems "upside down'" in terms of the attached to
detached borne ratio. Posusta stated that he believes the project should he more balanced.
Posusta expressed that perhaps 1 [eritage should revise their concept to include Ittany more upper
bracket homes. Posusta stated that perhaps neighbors in Devron Careens would be more receptive
to the project in that case.
1'rie complimented Gritiman on the report prepared. Frie agreed that the current phasing plan
seems to promote low value housing. Posusta also agreed, explaining his concern is that in many
circurnstanccs, dcvcloprttents regress from where they stare, which isn't a good indicator for this
pr~jcct.
Frie commented that to put neighbors concerns about property value in perspective, the property
owner could have built an unattractive shed on the property line between Devron Grecros and the
project site, and thel'e wouldn't be anything the Planning Commission could do. However, Frie
noted that in light of the current proposal, the Commission has the opportunity to proceed with
discretion. Frie stated that he would like to see neighbors keep a verbal communication with the
developers in moving forward. Moore commented that beyond personal issues, the property
owners are looking at the big picture as well.
Chairman Frie officially opened the public hearing. Tom Moores, 718 101 ~` Street, stated that he
has an interest share in a piece of property in the middle ot`this development. Moore stated that
the developer has never contacted him about development plans. Moore expressed concern that
Llle CICVCIOpGI's dldl1't rGSL'arCI1 property OWrterShlp Carefully al1d I1ad never Contact hlm about
selling his properly. O'Neill explained that all property included in the development plan will
need to he accounted for in the tinal project as all property owners have to be shown on that.
application.
Dan L,emm, 1 1380 Cameron Avenue NF., asked that the developers colttact all owners in the
surrounding area regarding the project as the proposal moves forward.
l tearing no fi.u-ther comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Frie asked the public io
watch for ful-ther public hearing notices on this item.
Hilgart agreed that the golf course should not be considered when calculating density. 1 filgart
also agreed with other staff conurlents on phasing and the housing mixes in the phases. Hilgal-t
idnctitied that there are no R- I n size lots, which help to guarantee high end housing. llilgart
stated chat the number of 50 foot lots and the density ratio are also concerns. Hilgart indicated
that the developer should revise the plan to he more consistent with the comprehensive plan ratio.
Uragsten stated that he is in favor ot`continuing the item as well. 1 lc recommended that the
developer work with staff to resolve the issues noted. }-le reserved his comments until the plan is
revised.
7
Planning Catnmissiora Minutes 06/07/05
Spal-tz asked when the AC1AR Would be complete, O'Neill reported that a draft is available.
O'Neill explauted that. there is a danger in running parallel the AUAR analysis and plamling
process as the AUAR may determine that changes need to he made as part of mitigation measures.
Spartz echoed the other C:onunissioner's concerns on density. Sparta stated that. the staff report
was thorot.lgh and hopes developer looks through it.
Suchy stated that slle has three pages of notes and questions on this plan, which leads her to the
conclusion that perhaps it doesn't reflect smart planning at this time. Suchy stated that t she will
also Ilold her C0111IllClltS LO the Ilext lileetlllg btlt COIICIIrred W1tIl the staff report, St.IClly
reeOlill)lelldCCl that llle developer be gIVe11 allci fOIIOW the Clty's ratlOS allCl stal1daCds.
Frie stated that wished to cornrnent on two issues. First, Fric reported that the 2000 Census
illustrated that Monticello was ranked first for the nlnttber of multi-f~unily units constructed and
available in the County. Fric stated that the City is still seeing that number grow. Frie stated that
such an unbalance of housing is unacceptable. Frie comrnente(1 that perhaps the City shot.tld
review a possible rnoraiorium on attached condo and townhome projects.
Secondly, Frie expressed considerable dismay at the misuse ot` Planned Ut1it Developments and
tI1Cl1' (leflllltl011 Llllder the OI'dllldllce. Ffle gllestl011ed Why the COI1111115510n shOUld CVell COllslder a
PUU that is not consistent with the PUD ordinance and the comp plan. Frie noted that while he
understands the comp plan is not written irl cement, the Co11u111ssu)n IiILISt WC'Igll amendments and
changes in use carefully.
Fric stai.ed while he understands that the developers have paid high prices for land, it is not. the
• City's responsibility to make their profit margins work. Fric stated that density is being misused
to make projects profitable. He commented that it seems that developers use the PUU to
circumvent the ordinance. Frie recommended that the Planning Commission review the PUD
ordinance to eliminate these circumstances. Frie stated that there arc significant issues with fife
concept plan and t11e COmI11ISSIOrI ha511~t CVe11 scratched Lhe SLIriaGe Ot the C11t11"C SCOl)e Of the
project. brie asked for the reaction Of other Commissioners to his comments.
Suchy, Spartz, Dragster and I{ilgart all agreed with Fric's assessment of the Pl1D use. Frie noted
that the manner of current PUDs puts staff between a rock and a hard place in determining a.
project recommendation.
Posusta commented that the proposed concept shows a higher density than I lennepin County; the
highest ratio in the area. Posusta stated he has serious concerns about that item, as the market
play not he able to bear the density.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIL,'1'U CONTINLIF TI-lE REQUES"1' I~OK CONC'F.PT
S'T'AGE PLANN[U UNIT DF,VF,LOPMEN'I' FOR.IEFFERSON AT MONTIC'L;LLO FOR _30
DAYS TO NliX"1' RF,C~ULAR MEETING OF THF, PI.ANNINV COMMISSION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOT[ON CARRIED.
I I . Public Hearin > - Consideration of a re nest for a Conditional Use Permit for a. Conte t StaUe
Planned Unit Devclo meat for Monte Club Villas a 14.1$ acre residential develo Inert
COIISIStIII ~ of 26 detached townholne units. A licant: L & G l,l,C
Grittman provided the staff report on this item, explaining that comprellensivc plan issues will
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
need to be addressed in this item, as well, '}'}te proposal does illustrate Glow-density project.
consisting of single family detached townhomes with association, Grittman stated that in this
case, the developer is relying on the PUD designation to vary some ordinance requirements.
Grittman staled that the plan does provide private streets. However, staff s concern is designing
with the heavily sloped site and heavily wooded north half, Grittman reported that in the lust
meeting wish staff, it was discussed that the comp plum calls for preserving existing slopes,
vegetation. Staffs concern is that the proposal as shown requires regradc of a significant portion
of the site. Grittrttan explained that type of development style is not consistent with the policy of
the comp plan.
fldditionally, staff had discussed the possibility of looking at the entire area, including the C;ity's
public land, comprehensively to determine what could be developed to preserve woodlands and
wol-k with the topography. At that tune, a potential land trade had been discussed. Flowever, that
type of proposal presents its own issues in terns of the type of tree growth and location and the
Parks Commission's concern over a land trade.
Grittman explained that the Parks Commmission plan was more aggressive and required land
dedication and them the purchase of remainder to accornntodate a public park comtection from
existing park to Denning nvenue. However, at this time, Grittman reported that it is the
developer's desire to move f~~rward with the original concept plan.
Grittman stated that staffs recommendation is to look for options or alternatives to this plan as
rncans to preserve views. Grittman noted that thel-e are positive reasons to use a PC_1D as it allows
t7exibility to accomplish positive results. l Hwever, Grittman stated that the key to using it
successfully is to make sure that it works to accomplish the City's goals.
Fric conlirmed that. the comp plan identifies the hill as a significant natural feature. Grittman
added that although the property is not currently in the City, upon annexatlOn It COItICS In as
Agriculture/Open space, and than is rezoned. The colxlprehensive plan's long range land use map
designates the property as contrrtercial.
Hilgart asked if it would be feasible to allow to an increase density on southern half in order to
preserve northern slope. Cirittrnan stated that in terms of the unit style and the developer's
intention to deliver ahigh-end product, they would need a significant redesign,
Fric inquired about. the proposed shared driveways. Grittman clarified that the shared driveways
were proposed by the developers and explained that shared driveways have worked successfully in
other high-end projects. C)ragsten also noted that the shared driveways arc on a private street.
Skip Sorenson, project. architect, explained that the unit exterior will be stone with approximately
2000 square feet of tinishcd main floor space with basement and attached gal'age. He anticipates
the units to sell iu the upper $400,000. The development will be governed by an association and
each unit is arranged as to have a localized view with retaining walls to create yards, Sorenson
stated that the developer Etas received a strong interest in the project from the community.
Sorenson stated that a preliminary concept plan showing a possible land trade was submitted to the
Parks Commission. However, after their comments, they decided develop within their own site.
Fric asked if the covenant doct.lntents had yet been prepared. Sorenson indicated t}Icy had not.
,lobo f3ogal-t, project engineer, confirmed that the product is intended to he unique, with high-
9
Planning C:o111mission Minutes O(/07/05
quality views, landscaping and facade detail.
Sorenson stated that the product will be rltarketed to the 50+ age bracket, who arc lookin for
g
association maintained and maintenance free housing. A Board of Directors will be appointed to
maintain those documents.
Frie asked if the developers were receptive to any of the options presented. f~'rie explained that
while he felt the developers were 111oving in the right direction in terms of product, there Was still
concern over the use of the land. Frie stated that rather than denial, he preferred to continue the
item so that the developer has an opportunity to discuss and review all options.
Posusta stated that tllc Parks Commission is not the ultimate arbiter of larul options and asked if
the developers are receptive to one road rather than two. Butch 1_,irtdenfelser, property owner,
Stated that t11Cy lOOked at that Opti0I1, bllt didn't want t0 e11CrOaC11 OIl (~.Ity land. t,I11dC11felSer
stated that he preferred to stay on their own property. Posusta commented on private drives in
relationship to ti re department concerns. Bogart noted the statement fior fi.lture development stage
design work.
O'Neill asked Posusta. about the corridor of park land on the second tier, which could connect City
parkland to Fenning Avenue. O'Neill asked il'Council would entertain the option of purchasing
land i11 that area outside of the park dedication in order tO create a band of green space. Posusta
stated he doesn't know if developer is willing to do that, but Colmcil would consider the option,
although the money factor would play into Colmcil's decision. Lindetelser stated that he can't
answer definitively without discussing with his partner.
Frie asked for the developer's project timefrarne. Bogart stated that they would like to be ready
for spring hofltC; COIIStI"UCtlo11 Wlth roadways and utilities in by October.
Hearing no fl.u'ther comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Suchy staled that she is unst.lre about the nlnnber of units in terms of keeping areas available so
tl1al othel"S Can en~l~y the alllellltl4'S. SLIChy SLlggeSted that t11C developers CVell COI1SIdCr peI'llaps
kCeplllg SOllle COI1lfrlel'Clal land Use. SUCIIy 11oled that I1Cr Otller COIICCPII IS the prlVale Streets. She
explall1Cd that aS the C.Ity YGCCIVed Illctlly Colllplalnt Calls abOLlt prlVate Street 17ta111te11a11Ce, the
requirements and responsibilities need to he spelled out with homeowners.
Spart.L II1dICatcd that 1115 primary CQI1CCrn IS the VISUaI II11paCt pI1 t.lle hell. SpartL Stated tllal while
he feels the developer is on track in terms of the product proposed, the number of units may he
High. HC concurred with the recommendation to continue the item.
Dragster staled that 11c doesn't see advantage in trading off land in tel-rns ol'savings trees.
However, he explained that he is concerned about the width of the proposed lots, the spacing of
file roads and the width of roads. As a PUU, he stated that he wants to see very detailed plans of
110117e5 at the Ilext fCVIE;W level.
Bogart stated that lot widths are currently at ~~ feet and the road is 26 fleet ftlce to face. He stated
that this can bC adjusted. Dragster asked ahout spacing of the entrance drive. Bogart stated that
they had met. with City and County and believes ii is acceptable spacing.
Hilgart's agreed that the land swap isn't a good idea. Hilgart suggested that it was most likely
guided tier commercial on the comp plan land use map because of its existing status. Hilgart
complimented the developer on sending the message to other developers that R-1 A 1lomes can be
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/OS
built. Hilgart noted that while he doesn't approve of losing all the trees, he is conscious of the tact
that it is the developer's land to develop as they would like.
Posusta stated that the developer should at least look at staff's idea of a trade-off. The goals of
saving trees and view should at least by considered. Posusta asked if the homes would be
overlooking townhornes, and in that case, is the view truly an amenity.
Bogart stated that each house will be on a slightly different level so that the southern row would
overlook the northern tier, and then over the top of the multi-family.
Pos(.ISta asked ifthe developers had discounted a land swap because tl,e Parks Commission didn't.
like the plan they had proposed. Bogart stated that the Parks COrnrnlssu~n's reception of their plan
was negative. O'Neill stated that the land the Parks Commission saw was not what was shown in
the land swap examples provided by staff. O'Neill stated that. the negative reaction was to the plan
presented to t}te Commission which encroached into the parkland and reduced trees. The Parks
COmITtISSIOn took a positive view of a land swap that wo(tld save oaks woods artd then create the
connection in front of the devclopntent. "I'he Parks Coral„fission suggested requiring some in
dedication an(1 some in purchase. Posusta asked what. the required land dedication woul(1 be for
the development. GI-ittman stated at the cl.tl'renl (tensity, it would be about. 1.1 acres. Bogart stated
th~lt they arL' aware of park dcdlCatlOn 1'egLlll'el„eat, and the plan provides a little better than I . I
acres of park dedication ol, Outlot A.
SLlchy stated that she feels strongly that the woodlands need to he preserved, noting that there arc
only a few I)ieces of property that contain trees in Monticello, and they need to preserved.
Ililgart stated that. in a way he agrees, but the developer is keeping the overall density low, artd
building something larger than what is typically proposed. Hilgart stated that the developer could
always propose something higher in density and lower in quality just to preserve the trees. Suchy
responded that in that case, the Planning Commission still has the latitcrcJc to deny the request.
Uragsten agreed with Hilgart in that this plan presents an ol)porturtity io see upscale scale housing
and that destroying the view defeats the high-end product.
Spartz stated that he thinks the item should be continued in order to research options, noting that
he, too is concerned about free loss. If tlte-'e is no good solution result, he indicated that this plan
may sntt~~(:.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTL "I~O CONTINl1F, TI lE RfQUL,S"I' I~OR A
CONDITIONAL USL, E'ERMIT FOR A CONCEPT STAGE PLANNL;U UNIT DEVF.LOPML;NT
I'OR MON'l'L; CLUB VILLAS, A 14.18 ACRE RF,SIDFN"I'IAL UEVELOPMF,NT
CONSISTING OF 2C DF.TACI IL;U "I-UWNHOME tJNI"1'S, BASED ON A FINDING "THAT
MORE TIME, [S NLCL;SSARY TO REAL;KCH OTHER PTIONS I~OR PLAN FOR MON'I"L;
CI.t1F3 VILLAS TO ,}LILY ML;L;'I'IN(;.
MO'['IUN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
12. Public I Icarin -Consideration of a rec nest for Preliminar Plat for } liddert Forest a 103,44 acre
residential subdivision consistin = of 171 sin le-famil units and ora re( nest to re-?orte from A-O
to R-1 Sin =le-FalTtil Residential and R-IA Sin le-Famil Residential . A licant: Br'adlc
Pat.nnen
Gritlman reviewed the staff report, stating that the developtnertt proposal shows 171 single-family
Planning Commission Mimrtcs 06/07/05
units to be developed in two phases. The project, located ill east Monticello, south of County
Road 39, consists of a lame area of woods and wetland in the south section. Grittman reported
that the developer is proposing R-1 zoning in tllc north section and R-lA zoning In the south.
Drittrnan explained that due to tllc trees in the southern section, the developer will preliminary plat
that area in a future phase. That allows time for a tree inventory in order to align streets and lot
I111e5 t0 presel'vC as lil~llly trees aS pOSSlble. Cirlll111an Stated the staff report recontnlends that the
five lots along east side be withheld so that roadway locations are not fixed in t11is area.
ns this is a relatively straightforward plat that complies with the zonirTg ordinances, Drittman
reported that Staff is recornlncnding approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning with the
conditions that the applicant receives approval from County for access, that the appropriate park
dedication is reserved for southern portion, that the fiive lots mentioned are removed, and that the
applicant respond to the requirements of City Engineer.
Frie complimented Paumen on bringing forward a plan COI1515tC11t Wlth the Clty's comprehensive
plan. Chairman Frie opened public hearing.
Brad Paumen, applicant and property owner, clariEed that the plat will actually be I G5 lots.
Paumen stated that he is working with adjacent property owner Mark Woolston to upgrade tllc
properties in terms of the wetland and wooded amenities. Paulllen stated that. he will preserve as
many trees as possible and noted that the development l)lans contain twice the park dedication
required by ordinance. He reported that.lle and Woolston are investing monies inactive parks,
elevated walkways across wetlands. Paumen referenced his experience in developing other high-
end pr(~jects. Paumen also noted that his development will provide improvements to help resolved
• the f)itch 33 drainage problem.
Frie asked if there are County concerns regarding [)ItCII 33. Paulilen 1'CSpOllded tl1at the C.Ity
l",Ilf?Illeel' alld COLIIIty al'e WOI"king thrOLlgh thOSe COnCCY115 t0 COII1GIde Wlth tI115 deVelOpnlellt.
Frle II1gLll1"ed WI1etI1Cr the tact that tI115 parcel Is not COI1tIgl.IOLIS t0 the Clty pre5CI1t5 a pI'Ob1e111.
,lolln Bogart, pr(~ject engineer-, stated that Woolston, who owns the contiguous parcel, Will be
moving forward soon. U'Ncill also explained that via the annexation agrcclnent, the Riverside
Acres development. is considered contiguous for the pl.lrpose of alulexing adjacent parcels.
Paumen noted that they had nlet with staff a number of times and wol-ked together to develop the
proposed plan. Paumen stated that. the park and Wetlands complexes will be completed first. I Ic
also noted that file main locus for utilities will he to fix watershed pl-oblems. Paumen stated that
they will bring the second phase (tile outlot) forward with final plat, s0 that the [',oIT11111551011 Call
rCVIeW file entll"C prellmlllary prl0r t0 approVlllg file f111aI plilt. Pc'111117en stated that It Is tllelr goal t0
keep the road completely out of the woods.
Frie asked for approximate lot prices. Pal.lmen stated that they arc looking at $1 p0,000 for lots
with home values at four times that.
Chall'lllall l'rle Opened tI1C pIIbIIC heaClllg.
Tom Moores, 748 104t1i Street Northwest, addressed the (:onullission, stating that Ills 5011 owns a
house on I tall nvenue. Moores stated that his Son received a letter on file public hearing and is
concerned on how utilities arc being provided to the development. Bogart Stated that. file City and
developer have been working on the alignment, which may run along County 39 and Dillard.
Moores asked who will pay for the extension and if Iris son will be assessed. Paunlell stated that
1?
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
they have been working on this with the City with t1TC idea that they would he paying for trunk
• tees as required and up-fronting the lifit station costs. 'T'hey will also be fixing County Ditch 33.
Moores asked if Sunset Ridge is going to be connected to those utility systems. Paumen stated
that it would he looped though. Moores noted the location of his son's property between the two
plats. Moores asked if he could stay in the township. Grittman responded that staff is aware of
the owtTCrship of that parcel and its status as a township parcel. GritttnarT stated that the developer
has been asked to accommodate any futt.lre connection, but as of now, they have to basically go
around it. Grittman stated that the futt.tre connection concept plan is not part of the current
hearing, but that staff are working to ensure that access can be provided to allow future
development. Moores disagreed alTd stated that the developers do not return Iris calls.
Posusta asked the developers if they had contacted Moores about purchase. Moores stated that
F3ogart has been good about. responding, Posusta stated that it was his understanding that the
developer had contacted Moores' son, offered a price, then there was a counter offer. Moores
stated tlTat was untrue. Posusta. noted that Moores would be an island of township IatTd, unless he
wants to be included.
Frie noted that the Moores parcel is not included on the item on the agenda,
Nancy Chadwick, 9747 l tall Avenue, addressed the COm1TTISSIOt1, Stating that s1Te IS Very 1lappy
with this plan. As a neiglTbor, she is pleased to sec what has been proposed. Chawick ingt.tired
what would happen to Elall Road through her neighborhood. L;ogart responded that the portion
through tlTat neighborhood is a township road, which the developer has no control over; the
portion within the proposed development will be wider-. Chadwick asked if it was necessary to
puslT it througlT. Grittman stated that the connection is an importalTt one as it provides alternative
crnergency routes to serve Kiverside Acres.
"I'om Schillewaert, 9170 I-larding Avenue, asked about drainage in the area.. Paumen responded
that Phll Lll:in of WS13, a soil hydrologist and wetlands expert, has done a complete analysis. The
capacity will be tripled or better for this development. Paumen Stated th~lt tlTey $rC also WQI"king
WItl1 WI'Ight COl.lnty Soil and Water to etTSUre that all drainage issues are addressed and resolved.
Mike Olquist inquired what would be the plan Cor annexation of township parcels, ittcltlding those
in Riverside Acres, into the City. Posusta stated that according to the annexation agreement there
would be no requirenTent to antTCx (or ten years.
Louis Fliniker, indicated that he st.lpported the development. Hiniker ingt.lired whether he would
know whether the lift. station was there in terms of noise, disturbance, ete. Paumen stated no.
Hiniker asked t1Te developers to assist in solving the f)itch 33 problem.
I tearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Uragsten asked if the Commission is approving the entire plat, or just the north portion. Grittman
stated that the Commission would approve the entire plat, with the understanding that there are no
lots in the south portion until the second phase. Dragster asked whether the developer has
considered knockdown barriers on Hall Road. Grittman staled that miglTt be possible. Uragsten
asked if there were sidewalks. Grittman stated that the platT provides them and that code requires
sidewalks on one side.
Sparta commented on the butficr between development and Kiverside Acres. PaumetT confirmed it
would stay.
13
Planning Conunission Minutes 06/07/05
Sucl]y complimented the proposed plan.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HIL~GART TO RF,COMMF,ND APPROVAL, OF TEIE
RL•;ZONING TO R-1 AND R-lA, BASED ON A FINDING TI-IAT TILE PROPOSED
ZONINCJ 1S CONSIS"1't~N"I' WI'['H "I'HE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD,
CONSIS'I'LN'1' WI"I'H "['HE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND MEF,TS THE
REQUIRLML;N"hS OF THE ZONING REG[.JLATIONS FOR RF,7,ONING
CONSIDF,RATION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SI'ARTZ. MO"PION CARRIF,D.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGAR'[' MOTION TO RF,COMMEND
API'IZOVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HIDDEN FOREST, BASED ON
A FINDING 1-'f lA"1' "I'I IF: LAND USIA PATTERN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
C1"I'Y'S CryOMPR.EHENSIVE PLAN, AND THA`I''1'HE PROPOSED I'LA'I' MN:E"1"S
THE R-1 ZONING RICiL.1LA'I'IONS, Si1[3JC:CT TO THT FOL,I,OWIN(i
CONDITIONS;
1. 'fhe applicant will need to receive access approval onto CSAH 39 li-om Wright County.
?. A park dedication rcyuirement as set by City resolution is recorded with the developlT)ent
contract to be approved with the tmal plat, based on the phasing of park dedication.
3. The applicant redesign the plat to remove the 5 lots to the cast of "Street A" at this time.
Arran~~ement of those lots to be inclt.lded in a future phase of development for Outlot D.
4. The applicant accommodates the requirements of the City F,n~~ineer's report, dated 6/I/O5.
MOTION SF.,CONDF,D BY COMMISSIONERt SLICIIY. MOTION CA[tRIED.
13. Cortsideralion to a ]~]rcwe_a resolution of the City of Monticello Planning Commission tindirt~thai
a modl(IC. ttior] to the Redevcloprnent Plan for C'entraL.MOnticcl.lo Ke(l~yel.opmeit Project No. I
and a Tax lncrerner)t 1~inancin ~ Plan for T'IF District No. I-34 conform to the General Plans for
the development and redevelopment of the city. Annlicant: Citv of Monticello
Koropchak provided the staff report, stating that. the proposed resolution asks Commission to
expand the TIF boundaries to include the current AVR site and Uahlhenner site on the east
and the Otter Creek Crossing area in the west. Koropchak noted that the TIF district is a
renewal artd renovation district, W111C11 by laW 1"eClUlreS that ~n InSI)eCtlOn IS COITlpleted,
Koropchak reported that an outside const.lltant was hi--ed to perform the inspection.. The
items will also go io the HRA and (:ouncil fol- their appropriate review.
Koropchak noted that tax increment is the tax valt.le between the property today and what is
being proposed. TI1c taX InCCelllent WIII be Used for the Clty's COSt only t() Ollset the C()St ()t
acquisition and ramps for interchange. It is not being used to cover the developer's costs.
Frie asked if this will help cover the costs for Highland Way. Koropchak staled that it
doesn't cover any of Ryan's costs at all. Koropchak stated that Planning Commission is to
1-eview the plan for compliance with the comp plan's 1edevelopment intent.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Sl1(:HY TO APPROVF, A RF,SOI,I_JTION THAT A
MOUIhICA'1'ION TO THF., RF,DF,VF.LOPMF..NT PLAN FOIL CENTRAL.., MONTICELLO
l4
Planning Commission Minutes OG/07/OS
REUEVELOPMEN"1' PROJECT NO. I AND A TAX INCRL;MEN'i' FINANCING PLAN
FOR T1F DISTRICT' NO. I-_34 CONFORM TO 'I~HL, GENERAL PLANS FOR Ti fE
DEVELOPMENT AND RED1/VI-;LOPMENT OF THF, CITY.
MOTION SL;CONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTF,N. MOTION CARRIL;U.
14. Comprehensive.Plan Update
Grittrllan reported that staff wor.rld be working to put together a proposal fi)r a comprehensive
plan update fir t11c next City Council meeting.
15. Cort~rt~rmity He~llth ASSeS5n1l;I1t - SlII11I11~1.1'y Update
Suchy reported that she had attended a cornrnunity survey assessment seminar presented liy
the University of Minnesota.. "1'he assessment was completed by ten college students who
looked at population, demographic and development trends in Monticello at the request of
Wright County. Suchy presented the Commission with a. summary of results.
1 G. Carlisle Villa je draina >e issues.
C+ritiman stated that the developer has been informed of drainage issues and stated that it has
been made clear that it is their number one priority. The City Engineer also met with
property owners to discuss the resolution of the problem.
17. Adjourn
MOTION TO ADJOURN BY C'OMMISSIONL;R SI'AR'i'Z.
MOTION SEC'ONDEI) k3Y COMMISSIONER DRAGS`I'F~;N. MOTION CARRIED.
Secret
•
l5