The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 04-08-2024 Joint1. Agenda Documents Documents: SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA - 4-8-2024.PDF GOOD NEIGHBOR PUD CONCEPT.PDF AGENDA MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Monday, April 8, 2024 — 5 p.m. Monticello Community Center Call to Order 2. 5 p.m. Good Neighbor Hospitality (The Pointes at Cedar) — Concept Review 3. 6 p.m. Fair Family Recognition Conversation 3. Adjournment r(7 " �' � it an Consulting Ilc Steve.GrittmanConsulting@gmail.com MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann Mayor Hilgart and Monticello City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: April 3, 2024 MEETING DATE: April 8, 2024 (Workshop Meeting) Planning, Zoning, Land Use RE: Monticello— GoodNeighbor Pointes at Cedar —Concept PUD Review GC FILE NO: 120-01— 24.05 PLANNING CASE NO: 2024 - 012 PROPERTY ID: 155-278-001030; 155-278-001040 Site Context and Proiect Description This memorandum reviews the elements of a proposed concept plan for a project in The Pointes at Cedar District (PCD). The Pointes at Cedar is a specific zoning district. Projects proposed within the district are encouraged to submit a concept proposal for the joint review by Planning Commission and City Council. The project is not proposed as a Planned Unit Development. The proposal is situated on parcels bounded by Chelsea Road on the north, the Deephaven Apartments on the south, and Edmonson Avenue NE on the east. The subject property is within the boundaries of The Pointes at Cedar District and is guided within the Monticello 2040 Plan for Commercial and Residential Flex, a category that envisions mixed uses. The property is currently vacant. To the west of the property is a medical clinic (also in The Pointes at Cedar District), and to the north the land is guided for Regional Commercial and occupied by two hotel properties. The subject property consists of two parcels, approximately 3.5 acres in area. The site is subject to existing cross easement requirements for access (sharing a private access to the southeast with the Deephaven Apartments) and would also gain access from a driveway to Chelsea Road on the north. The proposal consists of replatting the two lots into a single development parcel, and construction of a hotel and related restaurant as a "future" phase. The initial hotel phase of the project is envisioned by the applicant to occupy the easterly portion of the combined parcel, with associated parking on the north, east, and south sides of the building. The concept plan illustrates this facility as a four-story building containing 98 rooms, and affiliated amenity and common spaces. The future restaurant would be approximately 6,200 square feet in floor area and would be located west of the hotel. Although the two uses are not shown to be connected in this concept, follow-up discussions with the proposer have indicated that the buildings will be connected with a breezeway or other connection feature. In the Pointes at Cedar District, development review consists of a Concept Plan submission, followed by a Development Stage Permit review. The Pointes at Cedar zoning district provides for a two -stage review process rather than the three -step PUD process the Planning Commission and City Council may be more familiar with. The two-step process is intended to review a project's conformance to the specifications of the PCD ordinance text serving as a baseline set of development standards. Departures from the PCD standards would be required to be processes as variances, just as any other base zoning district. The PCD does not envision "flexibility" similar to the PUD District process. Comprehensive Plan Guidance The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan) guides the subject parcel (indeed the entire PCD area) as "Commercial and Residential Flex". Per the Comprehensive Plan, the Commercial/Residential Flex land use category is as follows: "Commercial/Residential Flex": The Commercial/Residential Flex designation encourages the mix of flexible and compatible development of commercial, office, retail and residential uses in limited areas of the city on the some or adjacent properties. The purpose of this designation is to give the city and property owners flexibility for future land use based on market demand. The Commercial/Residential Flex designation is applied to a few of the remaining large vacant parcels in the City including the parcels located south of Chelsea Road and north of School Boulevard and centered along Dundas Road. This designation is also applied to parcels located between Interstate 94 and 7th Street West. These properties may be developed as commercial, residential, or mixed land uses under the city's PUD zoning, subject to review and approval of the City." PCD Concept Plan Criteria The Concept Plan submission is intended to fully examine the consistency of the proposal with the intent and requirements of the PCD and identify issues and other elements of the project proposal that will bear on the developer's preparation of Development Stage permit plans, and on the City's review of those plans. The Ordinance identifies the purpose of The Pointes at Cedar District as follows: The purpose of The Pointes at Cedar District (PCD) is to implement the goals, policies and specific design requirements of The Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan (SAP), a chapter of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with the SAP, the PCD ordinance establishes three subdistricts. Each subdistrict with its specific uses and development expectations are clustered around a separate pool of The Pointes at Cedar lake and its public spaces. Each subdistrict's public and private improvements are intended to be developed in accordance with the applicable "biome" concept as identified in The Pointes SAP. Architecture, landscape architecture, and all site elements are to be designed and constructed in consistency with the biome theme within which the site is located. The three subdistricts are: • Populus: Reflects Northern Minnesota coniferous forest areas • Tilia: Reflects Central Minnesota's Big Woods and more heavily populated/developed regions • Quercus: Reflects Southwestern Minnesota's prairie and oak savanna Project proposals must demonstrate how they advance the goals of the SAP and the PCD District as a precondition of successful consideration. A finding by the City Council that the proposed development activity is inconsistent with the Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan (SAP), or with this Ordinance, is grounds for denial of any application for such development. It is the exclusive role of the City Council, with consideration of recommendation and analysis from various advisory bodies of the City, including City staff, to determine whether a development proposal reaches the requirement of consistency with The Pointes SAP and this ordinance. The current proposal is for a PCD Concept Plan review, intended to provide the applicant an opportunity for City feedback on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning review and the extensive supporting materials that such reviews require. The Planning Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to review the project, ask questions of the proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements raised by the project. This memorandum provides an overview of the project and will serve as an outline for the discussion. No formal approval or denial is offered for a Concept Review. The neighboring property owners have been notified of the joint Planning Commission/City Council worksession meeting, and a notice published in the Monticello Times, but it is not a formal public hearing. As with PUD concept review, it is vital that Planning Commission and City Council members engage in a frank and open discussion of the project benefits and potential issues. The Concept review is most valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to understand how the City is likely to look at the project, its development details, and the potential issues it presents. In this way, the subsequent land use and development specifics can be more finely tuned to address City policy elements. Future Review and Land Use Application Process If the proposer elects to proceed, the PCD requires that a Development Stage Permit application will follow the Concept Review step. Further land use approvals would include the following: o Preliminary and Final Plat o Development Stage Permit Review o Development Agreement o Cross Parking and Access Conditional Use Permits and Agreements as needed Pointes at Cedar Common Standards The applicable zoning standards from The Pointes at Cedar District are included as Supporting Data to this report. The Pointes at Cedar District sets an initial set of development standards applicable to all sub -districts and uses. They are summarized as follows. • Uses: Commercial along Chelsea Road (includes lodging, restaurants). • Height: No minimum or maximum. • Parking: Minimal parking is encouraged; Underground or Joint parking encouraged. Maximum supply to be 65% of standard City requirements where joint parking is available; as approved for other projects. • Signage: Reliance on wall signage; Freestanding signs should be monument style of 14 feet in height, 100 square feet in area, combined signage is encouraged. • Minimum Lot Size: no area or frontage requirements. • Floor Area Ratio (for non-park/lake fronting parcels): 0.3 for single story; 0.9 for 3+ story; as approved for mixed use projects. • Landscaping: Minimums per code; species and design according to applicable biome direction. • Accessory Uses and Appurtenant Structures/Equipment: Designed/painted/screened to effect biome requirements. Populus Biome Specific Standards The subject property is located at the north end of the Populus biome, representing a northern Minnesota environment. The Pointes at Cedar District encourages architecture, building materials, and landscape elements to reflect northern Minnesota environments. The PCD spells out many of these specific elements, and the Concept Review gives City officials an opportunity to build on those standards as summarized below. • General: Northern Minnesota "lodge" or "resort" feel; Rock outcroppings, limited lawn, Conifer and Birch overstory plantings. • Architecture and Building Materials: o Timbers and wood -look materials o Cut stone on building facades and post bases — especially granite or cut field stone o Contrasting materials on windows/balconies, detail areas o Roofing materials of composite, asphalt shingle, or metal standing seam • Materials and detailing on all building sides — other materials only in low -visibility areas • Lighting: materials and design to reflect biome architecture and detail, both wall and parking area structures and luminaires. • Site Structures: Design to match themes, or screen with compatible materials. • Landscape: Overstory and understory plantings to reflect Northern biome themes and native materials, extensive use of stone (dry stream beds, boulder outcroppings), northern native 4 materials encouraged, extensive planning for outdoor spaces, patios, pedestrian facilities, and other high -use facilities with alternative pavements and design. Staff Preliminary Comments and Issues For this proposal, the primary considerations evident at this point in the process include the following elements: Land Use. As noted in the project description, the subject site is designated in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan for Commercial/Residential Flex uses. The Pointes at Cedar zoning district encourages entertainment, hospitality, and similar uses. Both phases of the proposed project are strongly aligned with the intent of the land use guidance and PCD zoning district. As noted, the proposal indicates an intent to combine the two existing lots into a single development parcel on which the hotel and restaurant would exist. Although the initial site plan presented illustrates the hotel and restaurant as separate buildings, the proposer has indicated to Economic Development staff the intent to connect the buildings with a breezeway or other connection structure. In doing so, they would eliminate any need for PUD or PCD code amendment. At this time, consistent with other zoning districts, multiple principal uses or buildings on a single lot requires the use of PUD. Staff has also noted that the proposed site design leaves an approximately 1 acre or less area of vacant land to the west of the proposed project on the newly created lot. Staff would encourage the applicant to consider maximizing the subject site's development potential by considering shifts in the site plan to accommodate other code -compliant land uses in this remnant area. The Development Stage permit should illustrate a conceptual site plan illustrating how that portion of the site could be used for additional commercial development. Circulation and Utilities. The site is accessed along its boundary with Chelsea Road, with one access point from that street. The site also relies on a joint access connection from Edmonson Avenue NE, shared with the Deephaven Apartments. Design and location for these access points will be reviewed by the Engineering Department. Any additional cross access approvals or agreements will be processed with the Development Stage permit as required. iii. Building Materials and Architecture. The applicants have provided examples of building design and materials for the hotel complex at this stage. Building architecture will be an important aspect of PCD consideration. The concept plans identify significant attention to the Populus (Northern) biome materials, including timber, granite, and stamped concrete in high -use areas. The applicant has not provided detail of the restaurant user at this time. It is expected that when that aspect of the project is ready, a separate PCD Concept/Development Stage Review process will occur. With the combination of the two lots, the applicant will be asked to submit a phasing plan for site development improvements as a part of the Development Stage Permit review. As noted above, there are FAR (Floor Area Ratio) requirements for commercial uses in the Pointes at Cedar. The FAR requirements vary by location (park/lake frontage v. district exterior frontage), and by building type (single-, two, or three+ -story buildings). The district also accommodates a plan -specific determination for mixed use projects in the PCD. In this case, the subject property is a component of the Deephaven plat development, which initially created the residential project south of this site and reserved the Cedar and Chelsea frontage sites for commercial use. With a mix of a single- and four-story building on this site, the FAR will be calculated as an average. In any case, the FAR calculation permits the City to factor in the mixed -use design to flex the FAR for this project. With that flexibility, the FAR for the project will be set by the Development Stage permit. iv. Landscaping, Site Planning, and Buffering. It would be expected that the development provide enhanced landscaping features as part of the PCD requirements. The applicant has shown a well landscaped site plan and a sample palette of plant materials that are consistent with the Populus biome design standards. One aspect of the site plan is that the westerly 60+ feet of the existing undeveloped parcel noted above is separated from the main development parcel by a landscaped pathway connection between the Chelsea Road pathway and Deephaven Apartment internal pathways leading to The Pointes park and water feature. This pathway connection is critical. However, it may be better to relocate the pathway connection to the west boundary, avoiding the inaccessible island parcel. The applicants have suggested a variety of options for that remaining property. As previously noted, a discussion on the design and use of this area would be a valuable topic at the Concept Review stage and will be a required detail of the Development Stage permit. V. Parking. The PCD zoning standards require a cross parking agreement to allow public use of the parking areas, as well as cross -use by the site users. This will be a condition of the Development Stage permit. The developer is encouraged to review the parking locations and counts carefully to manage both the two proposed users, as well as a potential use on the western portion of the property. vi. Connectivity and Open Space. The site plan also shows connections throughout the project, both internally and externally. As noted above, the site plan illustrates a landscaped meandering pathway connection to the south. Connection to this pathway should be considered from the two planned site uses, as it is likely that users will cut through the parking area to reach this connection. Additional connections from the site to Edmonson would also be recommended. The Pointes at Cedar is planned to provide a recreational amenity to residents and visitors — convenient connections to the open space include pedestrian access. vii. Signage. No sign plan details have been provided. The proposer should comment on their intention on Signage as part of the Concept review in order to gain feedback from the policymakers on their plans before moving to Development Stage. The code quires consolidated free-standing monument signage in the PCD. viii. Other Details. Engineering and roadway improvements are addressed by City Engineering staff in a separate comment letter. Summary The review of the Concept Plan presented indicates that the proposed project is substantively compliant with The Pointes at Cedar ordinance requirements, with the noted recommendations detailed above. The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as the project proceeds to the Development Stage Permit process, and the Preliminary and Final Plat requests. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Site Image B. Applicant Narrative C. As -Built Site Survey D. Site Plan E. The Pointes at Cedar Zoning District, Excerpts F. City Engineer's Comment Letter and Plans Concept Plan Submittal Points at Cedar District Created by: City of Monticello Legal: Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, Deephaven 3 PID: 155-278-001030 & 155-278-001040 Fairfield Inn and Suites The Pointes at Cedar District Submittal Narration EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GoodNeighbor Properties is excited to propose the development of a 98 room Fairfield Inn and Suites on The Pointes at Cedar District. The hotel's owner, Monticello Hospitality Group, LLC., will bring Monticello its first Marriott brand hotel. The four-story hotel will feature 98 rooms, an indoor pool, meeting space, exercise area, and breakfast dining space for guests. The Hotel project will be situated on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Chelsea Road and Edmonson Ave. Launched in 1987, Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott is designed for today's traveler who is looking to be productive on the road, whether for business or leisure. In addition to complimentary Wi-Fi and breakfast, Fairfield Inn & Suites offers thoughtfully designed rooms and suites that provide separate living, working and sleeping areas. With more than 700 properties throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico, Fairfield Inn & Suites hotels participate in the award - winning Marriott Rewards° frequent travel program that allows members to earn hotel points or airline miles for every dollar spent during each stay. FAIRFIELD INN AND SUITES + THE POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT Located within the Populus Sub -district, the Fairfield Inn will incorporate site and building elements that feature design motifs found in northern Minnesota's lakes and woods region. This will be accomplished by the following site and building attributes: • Modifying the hotel's Porte Cochere from the prototypical designs steel and aluminum structure to one that features Gluelam Timbers and stained wood decking materials at its entrance. • Masonry accents that feature angular cut rock. • Accented siding elements near the hotel's entrance that will have a natural tone "wood" siding. • Mechanical screening will include materials that simulate cedar boards. • Plantings on the site will prominently feature birch and evergreen plantings. • Granite outcroppings will be situated around the site to accent featured areas and lead into pathways that connect to surrounding district walking trails. The development will connect to the adjacent Deephaven development's stormwater system as previously designed and approved by the City of Monticello. Requested Variances o FAR (floor area ratio, ratio of total building sf to site area). The guidelines ask for a minimum of 0.9, but we are half that at about 0.45 with the restaurant. o—56,800 sf for the hotel, —6,200 sf for the restaurant, and 139,267 sf for the site. 63,000 / 139,267 = 0.452 o Parking counts. The base zoning would require 120-125 for the hotel and 95-100 for the restaurant. We are showing 202 on the site plan, which is 15-20 short of what would be required. This, however, does fall in line with the District Area's plan which encourages shared parking agreements with adjacent developments to limit the expanse of parking lots. o Hotel requires 1 stall per room, plus 1 extra stall per 10 rooms, plus 1 stall per staff at busiest shift. o Restaurant requires 1 stall per 40 sf dining and 1 stall per 80 sf kitchen. o Loading area is shown in a driving path. EXHIBITS Land Use Application A010 Area Civil Plan A011 Site Plan A100 Floor Plans A200 Exterior Renderings A201 Exterior Renderings Architectural Features + PCD Biome Landscaping Elements + PCD Biome Planting Elements + PCD Biome We kindly thank the city and its committees for their attention to our submission. We look forward to delivering a development that brings another asset to a thriving city. Respectfully, Ted Thompson GoodNeighbor Properties CITY OF 4 CITY OF MONTICELLO Community Development 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 I Monticello, MN 55362 Monticeflo (763) 295-2711 I Community.Development@ci.monticello.mn.us Land Use Application PROPERTYWITRMATION Property Address 45°17'36.1"N 93°47'48.9"W Property Legal Description Lots Three (3), and Four (4) of Block 1 of Deephaven 3, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota Property ID Number 155278001040 & 155278001030 PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Owner Name Monticello Hospitality Group, LLC Owner Address 1910 42nd Ave W Alexandria MN 56308 Owner Phone/Email 320-762-5915 / ted.thompson@ciconstruction.com APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Name Ted Thompson Applicant Address 191042nd Ave W Alexandria MN 56308 Applicant Phone/Email 320-762-5915/ted.thompson@ciconstruction.com The information you provide on this application is considered public data. Please do not provide information which you do not wish to be publicly accessible. APPLICATION I LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE Amendment to Ordinance Map Amendment (Rezoning) Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit ✓ Planned Unit Development/The Pointes at Cedar ✓ Concept Submittal (NOTA FORMAL LAND USEAPPLICATION) Development/Amendment Final (PUD Only) Adjustment Other (Wild and Scenic/Temp Infrastructure, etc.) Site Plan Review Subdivision Simple Subdivision Administrative Lot Combination Sketch Plan Review Preliminary Plat Final Plat Variance Special Planning Commission Meeting* *Request relies on availability of Commission quorum $400 + escrow $400 $250 + escrow $250 + escrow $200 + escrow $50 + $3500 escrow $200 + escrow (minimum $2,000) $50 + escrow $50 + $1,000 escrow N/A N/A $200 + escrow $200 + escrow $50 + $1000 escrow $300 + escrow (minimum $2,000) $50 + escrow $250 + escrow $350 LAND USE APPLICATION PLAN REVIEW ESCROW Commercial/Industrial/Institutional *see escrow Residential 0-3 Acres $2,000 statement on 1 unit $1000 4-10 $6,000 reverse. 2 + units $1000 base + $100/unit — up to $10,000 for initial escrow 11+ $8,000 1 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FEE & ESCROW CALCULATION Total Fees from Above (only one fee required for combination applications) Total Escrow from Above TOTAL TO BE PAID AT APPLICATION $ $50 $ $3,500 $ $3,550 Revised 2023 5 Property Owner's Statement I am the fee title owner of the described property and I agree to this application. I certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been previously granted. Printed Name/Title: (Signature) Applicant's Statement (Date) This application shall be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding the application. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the City Ordinances and current policies related to this application and that the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. Printed Name/Title: Ted Thompson-AuthorizedRepresentative (Signature) Applicant's Statement Regarding Fees & Escrows (Date) 3/5/24 I acknowledge the Fees & Escrow Purpose explanation below and hereby agree to pay all statements received pertaining to additional application expense and City review. Printed Name/Title: Ted Thompson-AuthorizedRepresentative (Signature) Timeline for Review (Date) 3/5/24 MN State 15.99 allows a 60-day review period for final action on a land use application (plat applications allow for 120 days), once an application is found to be complete, unless the City extends the review period and so notifies the applicant. Requests will not be scheduled for public hearing or City review until all required information has been provided and found to be complete by the Community Development Department. Purpose of Fees & Escrow Fees: The application fees are used for publication of the public hearing notice in the Monticello Times, for postage to mail the required notice to adjacent properties as outlined by ordinance, and recording fees. Escrow: Escrow amounts as listed in this application form are a written estimate of consulting and staff time and cost for case review and preparation of documents related to the application. This may include engineering, legal, planning and environmental consultation. Should the original escrow be exceeded, the applicant or responsible party will be billed for all additional services. In signing the acknowledgment above, the applicant is indicating that they have not relied on the estimate of fees in their decision to proceed with the application. It is the policy of the City of Monticello to require applicants for land use approvals to reimburse the City for costs incurred in reviewing and acting upon applications, so that these costs are not borne by the taxpayers of the City. These costs include all of the City's out-of-pocket costs for expenses, including the City's costs for review of the application by the City's staff, Consulting Engineer, Consulting Planner, City Attorney, or other consultants. The City will invoice the applicant for these costs within 3 months of final action on the land use application and payment will be due within thirty (30) days. If payment is not received as required by this agreement, the City will proceed on action to assess or lien. Payment of costs will be required whether the application is granted or denied. =mfiliVoREVIEW WFORMATION — INTERNAL USE Application Received Date Application Determined Complete Date/By Application Action Deadline Date Planning File Number: 60 Days 120 Days C01 BRIM= 958.73 RIM= 957.75 RIM= 961.12 \ INV= 955.63 INV N= 953.65 RIM= 961.00 W= 956,62 INV 5= 953.55 (1 C' RCP) \ RIM--959.94 - W W w w w W RIM= 964,60 w -W INV= 960.94 w -w w w w v w w w w w w \ w w - C H E S E A F 0 0 D 16" DIP CL5° 8" PVC sDR26 S RIM = 964 8 8 SS s S S S S s S s Ss -S S 8" S VC SDR-26 R I M =H6 5.2 6 Forcemain location per T �1 S city as -built drawings � ST ST 21' RCP �� ST T -ST S BM-q- 15" RCP ST ST ST ST 18" RCP ST �� T ST ST ST ST ST ST ST - ST ST S ST P-BUR P-BUR S „) Cleanout MH (FM) \ 27" RCP -- P_Bur. P-Bur. P uFl P-BUR P_BUR P- R_ P-Buy -BUR P-BUG M (48 S 1 2 EC. P-BUR P-BUR r-BU�t-BU�t P-BUR (/� C')L 1 6" �'VG-Ccl-liuu _ --C (!) c' v -- - - - B S S S -� __ -- IN T CASTING AND CA -Bu. -__ - i P-BU3 P-B R- �� --- S- S P-BUF -P-BUR P-BUR P-BUF P-BUR P-BU^-P-BU.I M 965. P-BUR�� ---P_BUF( P-BUR P-BUI. P-BUR P-BUU P-BUR P-BUR P-BUR _ l INV W 961.08 (15" RCP) _-r�UR - P-BUU BUR -p P BUFl I I dec. Trans. , INV 961.08 (15" RCP) - _ - - - - - CrneeSidewalk \ L ---------------------------------- \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 9 9 W - J �G U FL= 96�. FL= 953.02 Q ST ST ST -ST (S'5 " RCP) C Drainage Basin ST 1 �� I L= 953J 3 i U I ST MH (60") W/ SOLID CASTING ST MH (48") W� I ST MH (48") W RIM 956.50 � � � i NV E 953.00 (18" RCP) �- INLET CASTING Afr D GRATE ' INLET CASTING f INV S 953.00 (18" RCP) RIM 966.30 INV NW 953.00 (18" RCP) � � RIM 964.80 � � � (D INV W 959.47 (1`," PVC) NV N 961.41 (1 CD I 0 �- INV N 956.01 (15" PVC) I A ST MH D W INV S 956.01 (10" HDPE) I (48") W� (D SOLID CASTING I I I� RIM 964.00 I O INV N 954.09 (18" RCP) I FIRE I�,-,YDRANT I m MH 48" -- ��cn INV S 954.09 (18" RCP) ST I ( ) F.G. ELEV 965.70 964.20 � � �� GAAA��VA�VE � 199 SW 953.04 (6" PVC) CAN MH 4 E 953.04 (8" PVC) -FIRE HYDRANT - ST MH (48") W/ � � )� F.G. ELEV 965.10 INLET CASTING AND GRATE / RIM 965.100 6" GATE VALVE ;`8 PI,iC) 5LF-6" DR18 C900 PVC WM RIM 964.15 t� INV W 9j0.6J6 8"x6" TEE C I NV 5 9511D 6 �� INV W 958.08 (21 " HDPE) INV N 958.08 (18" PVC) INV E 9510. (, P\'C �� _ � ST ST OTS -SS�ST ST - - - -f�-------�-- ---- - - - - - - s=---- ------ I- -- - s � S s ---- -- -- S _ -�is ---- -----� -------- -- -�Q�I -MH (48"� - ---- ------ -�---- ------ ------ - I n RIM- 9 w -�-- W v� W W W R M 9 0 �, 5 W - W W W W 641 A PVC ET INV W 9 51-9 6 ( PVC) - _ I� INV 5 952.96 (6" PVC) I V S 50.0 1 " DPE ST ST ST ST INV E 951 .9 T O PVC )T ST ST ST �T _ W Approximat stub locata 011s m per city as -built drawings --I I � � ❑ 0� I� � I I ❑�❑ ST � c �ML (72" ❑ 1 ❑C ❑�� ❑C ❑1 ST I� �J I 1�1 CASTING ACID rPATT� W/ INLET CASTING AND GRATE RIM 964.40 -1 RIM 964.10 � INV E 957.88 (21 " PVC) INV E 960.00 (15" PVC) ST H 48" I INV w 956.25 (24" PVC) ( ) W/ _ I I F.F. 966°00 IN El CASTING AND GRATE PVC INLET INV S 956.25 (24" PVC) RIM 964.80 RIM 964.30 INV H 955�J__)).72 (18" HDPE) i m INV N 960.30 (12' I'vi ST MH (48") CST:1 955.72 (18" PVC) ❑ I _ W1 SOLID CASTIN� I I I I ST INV S 960.30 (12" HDPE RIM 965.50 D� D� D� D 1 LC D� ❑ m r INV N 955.44 (18" RCP) ST MH (60") W/ � � � � �i�/� „ -- .. _ � _ -0 Z" AfREA CIVIL PLAN a010 I" = 30'-0" C.I. �UNSTRUTIONM DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE V 1910 42nd Avenue W, Suite 300 Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 ciconstruction.com 320.763.2889 THIS SET OF PLANS IS THE PROPERTY OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE. COPY OR DUPLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 701, m1wi hqk ky 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www tanek. com REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION Monticello Hotel area civil plan DATE Date March 4, 2024 Drawn by TVH / ER a0l 0 N CD N L Scale as noted Q 0 0 7 RIM_ 958.73 INV= 955,63 I RIM= 959.94 � W RIM= 957.75 RIM- 961.12 INV N= 955.65 RIM= 961 00 �NV= g5E62 INV S= 953.55 12" RCP) SITE AND 51JILDING INFC�IATION SIZE PERCENTAGE OF NOTES SITE TOTAL SITE AREA 13%261 SQ. FT IMPERVIOUS • 113,218 SQ. FT. = 81.3% PERVIOUS 26,049 SQ. FT. - 16.1% NOTE: NUMBERS MAY CHANGE SLIGHTLY AS SIDEWALKS ARE FINALIZED BUILDING SIZE PERCENTAGE OF FLOORS SITE BUILDING HOTEL 14,443 SQ. FT" 10.4% 4 FLOORS FOOTPRINTS FUTURE 6,200 SQ. FT. 4.4% I FLOOR RESTAURANT TOTAL 20,643 SQ. FT. 14.a% W W W W W w w w w w W W W N W RIM= 9 4,60 w w w C H E S E A R 0 0 D 16" DIP CL50 INV= 9 9 4 8" PVC SDR26 \ RIM = 9 6 4 8 8 S S S S S S S SS S RIM=� 5.26 - SS � S � S S T S S 8„� VC SDR-26 Rorcemain location per city as -built drawings ST ST ST sT sT �- ST ST S ST BM-4 15" RCP 21' RCP ST ST T ST T ST ST 18" RCP S ST T ST ST ST ST __ ST S P- UR - P-BU�9 BUR BUA ( ) Cleanout MH (FM) 27" RCP,- _ -BUS P Bue P-Bun P-BUR P P-Bur. P- S M 48" 12" RCP S Buy ' P- I- P s - - -- a P-Buy S I S S v �J S VC u _ _ T CASTING AN D 0 - CA _ - IN --- S_ U• � ... ..t .. ..._":. .. ... .,. ., ....;, ....: ..3 : ,•. ,. . s... _ ...r ".,. .••r.• �''t'=Tom, t:a •_C:�•. w=.t.^ -�fi:" 4 ,• • Y. S ry+. •fir J� B J965. 1 S .... /. ,...., .. ... .. ..o ,. .. .. < . .. ... .. ;S .. .. .... - Pr BURY P - - 8 \\ ...•... • :.. ...: -•..a. . .. Y•,I'Y bs.- •.. .. v. .,.. .:. N. n.c , ,. .J -h >2.• .. _._ s - .yt •Pl BUR # P' BU�� P BUR P-BUR _ ,..,"' P •. t s >- «..... .: .. .... e. •+, :... ..f.. .•a :,. ,.;.. .. .•. a;•, .'.,, •. s P-BUR `P-BUR a.. ,.. .. .. .. !i.. ..... .s •. ,. .. ..... ., .y. ....,. {•.. :::=F•9d..,lt:wJ_ '.!'Sir 30 ts� .r .0 . : s.:r,- .{, •i �:� buR b'-Bu; I: P-Bu; P-Bu,� - P�" ` PROPERTY�N _M - - ,;:_ 8 15' P- - e _ NV 1 W 961 .0 ( RCP) BUP - P P-BUR - . W.�•v �.:' 'Y''a'"w 0 \ \ P BUT : _ W . . . . . . W WIW . . . . W W �` W -' .l . W . . -6 40" 1PAI1111WCING WT i ._� _ W . Fi�Pri T,*n Sj ''' - W ; NV 961.08 (15' RCP 12 F L6 J 202 PARKING STALLS l8 of WHICH ARE T -ST ST 1 5 ST - ST FL 9 5 3 e 0 2 ADA ACCESSIBLE) 0 Drainage Basin .W. WwW:.oW:.: - -. oW ( „) 16 v ST M H 60 W/ t+," : 12 12 T EL DROP-OPFI � W `� W I a SOLID CASTING ' ' I I COCHERE N I ` RIM MH 48 W W .. W W II I " I I I II NV E 953.00 (18' RCP + -Az I 24'-0 �i F0 -0' 24'-0" 20 -O' TRH' INV S 953.00 18' RCP) ��{ :; ::;' or or or or 01 ❑ ❑ .�2(� _ O I INV NW 953.00 8' R ' FUTURE ✓ ,, ✓, Q;,, , PATIO SEATING ❑ ❑ J�'�,- _ //�j✓= r , r ✓,� ,� r J� 1 _ ,.f: 1-011 2.4 MUT CD \ W , W .-W t/ 1 )�: � a <!' �e^• � S �v1 -1 '�, 4 8 � �✓ � HOTEL �� W ,S(D S'LID PROPOSED FUTURE RESTAURANT 4-STORY BUILDING EXIT I -STORY BUILDING APPROX. 54'-0" IN HEIGHT '4. RIM 964.00 EXIT .< II200 SQ FT FOOTPRINT W-ROOMS 14,443 SQ FT FOOTPRINT I � u. W� - - •=9'• - INV S 954.09 (1 8" RCP) � - - I T - MH _ - 964.20 \ / e W } a- "'' FUTURE A I - I SW 953.04 (6 PVC) TRASH rd - '�'� ✓"��✓N," 5AN r E 953.04 (8 PVC) YG/ HYDRANT 10 ST --@ CD ,...;"✓ / ,.: RIM - 51 E NL ( 10 t ,ATE VALVE 1� �N'' _ @ .� '! < -� INV W 1 DR10 C900 PVC W RIM �� @ PATIO SEATING INDOOR POOL I _- g CJ \ y � �• p / TEE I I f ,� a Q INV w 9 8.08 (21 ' HDPE) INV 5 9 512 C � - -, W INV .. � 8 PVC) . . " Y: ' NV OS � � N 958. C to t .. W `t; S :� - - ��T ST S C1 ST 3ST�._w.TT(r _�N♦ TRACK '� c s° ...: ..W s S y'�.,, , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EASEMENT FOR SHARED ACCESS ii N - - - - - - - - - -- ( -- -- �< �-�-� I W IM 9 5 5I� w w w W w - W W - W W/ w n �, ---- �I Vc INV. 'x> w r: I V W 9 1 INV-� 4 � ST �::;, . i �, , 9 6 � 99 V � � � I �I� � .75 ST INV S 952.96 (6 WC Ilw 3 50. 1 " DPE ST STD ST ST ST INV E 951 .9 T 0" � V C T ST ST ST ST r O X l m a t e stub U W pp b locata ns I per city as built drawings I DV EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING ST I I I ST W/ H 7 2 " HC �� I I 1I CASTING A N ( PATS W/ INLET CASTING AND GRATE RIM 964.40 RIM 964.10 EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING I INV E 957.88 (21 " PVC) INV E 960.00 (15" PVC) I � « I I I INV w 956.25 (24" PVC) ST H (48") W/ I I I F`�coIN ET CASTING AND GRATE INV s 956.25 (24" PVC) � � RIM 964.80 INV 955.72 (18" HDPE) S ST MH (48") � T ST 955.72 (18" PVC) I C W/ SOLID CASTIN� ST � RIM 1965.50 V_1� I � � INV N 955.44 (18" RCP)KIIIA ST �Vi� � � I ST MH (48") W RIM 966.30 IINV N 961.4 -PVC INLET RIM 964.30 INV N 960.3�_ i z Ivi INV S 960.30 (12" HDPE i I X. CONS-TRUCTIO-NI, DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE V 1910 42nd Avenue W, Suite 300 Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 ciconstruction.com 320.763.2889 THIS SET OF PLANS IS THE PROPERTY OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE. COPY OR DUPLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 701, m1wi hqk ky 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION Monticello Hotel site plan DATE Date March 4, 2024 Drawn by TVH / ER I 51TE FLAN a011 I" = 30'-0" a0l 1CD L Scale as noted Q 0 0 1.1 p��o 0000 000�I p � POOL u OI 31 — J 00 STOP, STIBULE L — — — iL — - I� I� TOR EQUIP )0— — — I 'T MEN FITNESS I UTIL. A L D O ME h1f= INCs D MECN. ELEC, 70�j AKFA I A I � UOMEN E3:D L II )0 DATA -e 0 ICE 1 1 II I ( . ELEv. �� 0 EQUIP. ELEV. ELEV. STAIR � � 7 i STAIR �- Ef OI 7�HE ErW6 � EMP. LA UM � � STOP, ® BR� �® TA 2 DEN Lo�Y O _ I LILU L4U o ® IUORIG LOUNcsE ROOM = L MAR1GEt I L J 00o I � stoP, Et _ W==r el 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN (11 ROOMS + AMENITIES) a100 1/16" = V-0" STOP, � C �Eru') EST RY. I PORT COCNERE IJ 11 rEcN. .......... �� - �! =1 — L=� '7. L ELEV. ELEV.IT. C STAIR I . . 2 TYPICAL OF ER FLOOR LAN a100 1/16" = 11-0" L �7 ICE (29 ROOMS PER FLOOR) STAIR STOP, I I I I I I I ❑ ❑ PROPOSED FUTURE RESTAURANT ❑ ❑ ❑ J rC.I CONSTRUCTI0N_]� DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE 1910 42nd Avenue W, Suite 300 Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 ciconstruction.com 320.763.2889 THIS SET OF PLANS IS THE PROPERTY OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE. COPY OR DUPLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 701, MIMI h qk ky 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION Monticello Hotel DATE prelim. floor plans Date March 4, 2024 Drawn by TVH / ER NORTH QD al 00 Scale as noted 9 ELEVATED VIEW FROM NORTHEAST a200 NOT To SCALE C.I. CONSTRUCTION DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE 1910 42nd Avenue W, Suite 300 Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 ciconstruction.com 320.763.2889 THIS SET OF PLANS IS THE PROPERTY OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE. COPY OR DUPLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION DATE Monticello Hotel exterior renderings Date March 4, 2024 Drawn by TVH / ER a200CD L Scale as noted Q 0 0 10 01 VIEW FROM 50UTHWE,5T a201 NOT TO SCALE 2 VIEW FROM NORNWEST a201 NOT TO SCALE C.I. CONSTRUCTION DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE 1910 42nd Avenue W, Suite 300 Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 ciconstruction.com 320.763.2889 THIS SET OF PLANS IS THE PROPERTY OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE. COPY OR DUPLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. t n k 0 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION DATE Monticello Hotel exterior renderings Date March 4, 2024 Drawn by TVH / ER a201 CD 1. N N L Scale as noted Q 0 0 amped concrete natural shaped stamped icrete not only helps ction for both pedestrians J vehicles, but gives nods to stone shores of lake )erior. User can feel the ges with their feet as they th cross and enter the ilding. Thick stone wall Required by the client the thick stone wall stands out from any direction. Serving the transition between landscape and building architecture it's visually dominant. It tells users how it resembles the stone outcroppings of northern Minnesota. Granite is the prime stone of choice, it's depth and texture invite everyone across distances to experience the northern architecture provided in the populus biome. Continuing along the theme of invitation, large stone walls are often associated with fireplaces and hearths, common in northern homes. 11 C.I. CONSTRUCTION DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE Proposed buildings and uses Architecture addressing the specific PCD Biome set- ting N I Crushed granite Resembling both the iron ranges and shores of northern Minnesota. This landscape will primarily cover the parking islands, along with the area around the porte cochere. It serves primarily to engage users from both below and tactilely. Additionally it serves as the starting point and the landscape slowly transforms to building architecture Architectural visit Although the client has strict standa maintain a modern brand image, the cochere offers flexibility. It serves a: Pedestrian entrance, and is the visual w to locate the building. At the advice of the City of Monticello, N the red brick architectural scheme, as closely fit's the populus biome's goal vision combines natural materials to ci architectural experience evocative of r Minnesota. It utilizes ship lap siding, columns, crushed granite, natural sl- stamped concrete, and thick stone wal materials engage users both visuall, tactilely, and from above, below and Wood columns' The porte cochere requires three structural columns per the client. Here wood or faux wood columns will support the overhang giving the impression of heavy timber construction. Choosing a bark exterior allows users to experience both visually and tactilely. Additionally, columns rising from the ground, surrounded by landscape to support a wood overhang let's a gradual visual transition between landscape and building, resembling similar patterns in lake country cabins. Ship lap siding Keeping with the traditional wood stain, the porte cochere will utilize ship lap siding. The timber material in both texture and color evoke the calmness and awe of northern Minnesota architecture. The curved form maintains it's modern feel as required by the client while the material itself is often associated with ships, lake cabins, docks, and winter landscapes. Other surface treatments 12 C.I. CONSTRUCTION DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE Brushed concrete The light Grey brushed concrete is the primary sidewalk material. Sturdy, traditional, and a brushed = = �':�-� •` texture to ensure slip resistance 'r°. ; . ' ry.: _ ::: ` R y for pedestrian safety. Concrete is the material of choice for : r F - - : ,x : _:'.. _ . ; •.._ ... - :..:�+. J ':s _ -� curbs, gutters, and various • .ram mechanical pads. ; - : ,:. _ t: ' : ' r: �Y :: , _' :•2Y �J•. - v . _ r �r• • _ •' - � .. s. - - - i '3' i ems^' }}'.4�'r -1 4 Granite outcroppings Granite outcroppings are a quintessential northern Minnesota icon. Users can experience the north shore by climbing up and taking in the f view. Although used sparingly due to cost, the outcroppings r -L }rAl- x �y k Y Y; = ` I },+ serve as a major way finder that ' evokes curiosity to both - } motorists and pedestrians 7 `rt- =�' ~:r; :Js :�, r "•L. 1' .j, ,rt r l l 1y'q•� F,p k'r7; +^ + tit %P ' v- + ' F .yam•''' �9'p{ L �. ' ; _ ,; { r+- ' 1- •ell +ti' i # f µi M Asphalt Asphalt is the main choice for roadways and parking lots. It's economical, easily sheds water unlike pavers, and it's rough texture reduces squealing. Additionally the texture makes it a safe choice for pedestrians Stamped concrete Stamped concrete will reinforce the major pedestrian, including thoroughfares towards the north pond. This unique texture draws people in the rock like texture closely resembles the shores of lake superior k, Proposed site landscaping General Landscaping Ground Covers and Other Sur- face Treatments Ground covers �-A Kentucky bluegras Kentucky Bluegrass is the typicz choice across North Americi This choice is economical, eas to maintain, and will cover mo! of the sit Crushed granite Crushed granite resembles both the iron ranges and shores of northern Minnesota. This landscape will primarily cover the parking islands and other areas around the building Coniferous trees 13 L411k, C.I. CONSTRUCTION DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE Black Spruce (Picea mariana) white Spruce (Picea glauca) —.IYIY.� • ::� ,,'�+-- ,:ram Northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) ,14", Shrubs _I * Red -osier dogwood #•.. I .'� _+ 1 R (Cornus sericea (stolonifera)) • s+• .5F •j 1- �f 97r• 'fW..L IL t r Thimbleberr) 10 (Rubus parviflorus -Ir - V. f I� e ;American Yew 9(taxus canadensis) PW S�k 0,i Al.L. I �� •'� t kf Proposed site landscaping 40 PRELIMINARY plant materials Pointes at Cedar District Biome: North Pool I populus Deciduous trees Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera) — IF 4 r 4 4r If 4 . .) ar i. 1 OF -- r� Iti 4 Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) +N / / •1 / r, `♦ II wI I / I / I I I I I I ' /I ' • 100 .... _ .••. .3 • .... •. _ t `� / ST 11F ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE WRIGHT \ . � \� / _ COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM , �\ NAD 83 (2007 ADJ.) 66 I I I 1 ' SS SS < < C ST < < < » SS SS » - G _ T.-V > ST < C I- F -- n`C F M 7 l ST > I I I > -7 V -- .....�-____-- I.I • '// ///� \ \ __ -- r �- - n_ I - ��°� FM --- --- ST • / / _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - X I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ 6 RIM= 959.08 I I I sr a < sT �j- INV= 951.25 I I I RIM- - 962.91 RIM=959.14 �.• / I I INV= 953.06 i'• / / %/ ST INV= 958.20 RIM= 963.31 A I \ ` INV= 959.38 I I I I I I Future sewer I :' •```' '� --_ -- - - I I III I '•: � / , III I n • .. �<T\/ � , I III � I 11 F.F. 966.00 I ' <INV= 62.46 ss � 57.60 V I V III I 't' � ,� / I I •; • III V I T RIM= 964.43 ' I ' Future sewer ........:. . INV S= 956.49 ST I I „ I I SUMP= 952.45 I I I I I ` I I RIM= 964.01 Future sewer RIM- 965.59 I i I RIM= 964.82 RIM= 964,24 RIM= 964.21 INV= 953.99 INV E/W= 951.69 1 I Future sewer INV SINV E/W= 950.12 RIM= 964.07= 951.12 INV= 949.42 I \ / `•. � / � G INV= 958.14 ' I INV= 952.61 INV S= 952.69 � I I � •••' � � � RIM= 962.14 � I * < � I � '1 - - - - - - - - - - - ` / INV=956.88 -� - I I » I ST _< ----a ----------------- I ' I---------'�--------- \� ----� ' ss • ,/ /\, ` -------- - - - - - - - - - - ^_�:-- 111 I III - ARIM=962.10 9s- •e3 l-- INV= 956.88 I n I I u / ST / / 96 rn \ _ ^ X c65, 1--•,Xg6s I n 9 I - I_ T / NIV= 956.54 9x RIM= 963.9` n � � sT �> > - - -, - NIV= 955.77- / RIM= 963.11 / / INV= 956.82 / / INV= 956.26 NIV= 958.06 _ RIM= 959.98 U INV= 959.98 / i INV= 961.73 I 1 1 I 1 In O F ■ F ■ 966 ■ 00 RIM= 964.31 V INV- 961.17 RIM= 9I , ,.t♦,♦ , RIM= 964.82 INV= 955.10 . IV / INV= 9 i.57 ST x 7 Q // / O , .d 6S6 �� 1 � ■ I RIM= 965.48 INV= 955.38 y s 964.5 96S 6S 9 / X969 V / / c RIM= 961.96 (LOW SIDE) INV NW=955.68 L INV SE= 955.66 z // / • 7 �ORIFICE= 957.09-_ 965 ■ [RIM= 964.15 V I TOP OF WEIR= 961.19 s INV= 960.68 x9s6.3 X9 9Ss9 I s6 z9 FL= 956.06 59 V I 2 . S 96S /------------------- _ _ _ \ . ssl o ss F- V 96 .3X9 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - I RIM= 963.43 .o se L 955.02 RIM= 964.52 --------- -- \ 9s' l 1� - - I I INV= 959.51 d 9 INV- 955.10 -a- - - 59.7- - - ► x9 I >! s I (RIM= 962.23 I 4•� '••' a 9 I RIM= 964.28 ' •x9 , „ , I INV= 957.44 INV= 954.85 \6v 9S -43.0 - - ss s e6 z 6 RIM-- 964.35 9 •r 9 X •6 69 J INV 959.87V I .i9 .9 F.F. 964.60 Ii s692 /s 99?Es0 F .rb.9S, 6 a f164 AP8C�•sGG696f 692 ^ - 96s11 X O I 9R6SIM= 963..90sX1 ' < .4_ < INV= 95961 RIM= 963.88 < x -I . . / RIM- 962.19 -INV= 959.47_ -1 - - - - - - - - - INV= 957.00 < t I 1 1� - 3 ' v� Swale is relatively flat, no grade - - - - (� ------L------------------------ x tr `-• I � i Swale is relatively flat, no grade 9"r• � �{�bs � 1 U9 � 6y y de - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 36 I I I I v . 967.9 I 3 . w ..... I FFE = 963.5 I I N I I C I I � a� 0 88 I PROPERTY BOUNDARY MONUMENT LEGEND n / N0. REVISIONS SINCE INITIAL DATE OF DATE m "DELEO 1120 falnerdusHialP01Road MN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SURVEY, U REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY O SET IRON PIPE WITH CAP STAMPED 40341" 356401 2�ea2s AND THAT I AMA DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR _ 11th N563Avenue 13Cloud, St Cloud, MN 56303 320-259-1265 UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. AS -Built Survey - K R A M E R LEAS D E L E O / ��ao 02 / 01 / 2024 Deephaven Development LLC 0 50 100 SURVEYING • ENGINEERING • PLANNING Signature: ".,, 1255 Edmonson Ave NE z9 BRAINERD S T. C L O U D Samuel J. DeLeo, MN License No. 40341 Date 6•B = SURVEYED SPOT ELEVATION City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota SCALE IN FEET PROJECT N 0 . B U C H P 2 3 01 Located in Section 14, Township 121 North, Range 25 West G< 15 AIM= 958.73 NV= 955,63 W SS BM 4 RIM= 959-94 w INVRIM.12 S 9'�53555 RIM- 961 \00 �R12 RCP)62INV SITE AND 51JILDING INFC�IATION SIZE PERCENTAGE OF NOTES SITE TOTAL SITE AREA 13%261 SQ. FT IMPERVIOUS • 113,218 SQ. FT. = 81.3% PERVIOUS 26,049 SQ. FT. = 16.1% NOTE: NUMBERS MAY CHANGE SLIGHTLY AS SIDEWALKS ARE FINALIZED BUILDING SIZE PERCENTAGE OF FLOORS SITE BUILDING HOTEL 14,443 SQ. FT, 10.4% 4 FLOORS FOOTPRINTS FUTURE 6,200 SQ. FT. 4.4% I FLOOR RESTAURANT TOTAL 20,643 SQ. FT. 14.a% A - SITE LIGHTING POLE FIXTURE �.60 .94 M=H 5.26 ST ST I ST ST �' S Cleanout MH (FM) 27" RCP 12 RCP P_ - P-BUR P-BUR P BUR P-BUR P-BUR P- R� P-BUR P-BUR P-BUR -BUR �P-BUR P-BUR S M (48") _ P-BUR P-BURr� S r_ n i� `� BURS--&c�Q�� C a S I N P- u S S T CASTING AND CA S i ,• R - u C 9 0 M 65. 1 ., . - _ P - 30 0 R .a U PBUR P - •BUR P P BUR P BUR .. - UR• PB - •P B �r. r-tsurc P- P• BURS • .y-�P•-RUR •. _ - •P-BURS -P•BU p_-t P-Bu RTY Ihk- _ r INV W 961.0 _ J--Ihk- � •'•' _ � _ _ f. 10 8 (15" RCP) _BUR_ P-Bu P P-BUR - W W." W W .- W .� WAW - W.. W W. MONUMENT - r, '�.: W. W W W W . W s � ` .a� � . . W l' . . . . W � � a � . _� . � . � . . . � b�'' �AI�ING S>=T . . �,� . _ . . . F �P r� � T �n ePd� W . -�_ • I N v 961.08 % �i e15' RCP) _TGN W W LILT O _ 12 - 22 - ---E - - \ T WSW WWWWWWWWW I LU \ \ , - 202 PARKING STALLS l8 of WHICH ARE O ST r T ST ST S 1 5 , . L- 9 C e 0 2 ADA ACCESSIBLE) _ N e 0 0 IS C e -� - i L"� I-ST ' W W Drainage Basin � -9 -9 � � � -" "- �� °=� ��_�• O ST MH (60 W 161 -m a / OFF .3:. •, 12 12 ,A TEL DROP PORTE cocV�lERl=1 "' SOLID CASTING - RIM 956.50 / y' MH (48' W \ ° k' LL- �D �,y 24'-0" � 1I � 1 ' �� V- v�SIGN LVL 4ENTRYINV E 953.00 (18" RCP) 4-' �a -0 F0 -0' �, 24 -0 X_ ❑ ❑ L INV S 953.00 (18' RCP) �.41 RE��Qr' INV 0 (1� NW 953.0 8' RCP) � � �:• FUTU � . PATIO SEATING J �' , �✓ '_ C �1 \ W _ _ W W } P �=�;!1' I A\\\ _ In W d r ✓j A t �a,VV i CD i M H 48' _- a ( ) �// HOTEL �� D E 1 SOLID CASTING PROPOSED FUTURE RESTAURANT 4-STORY BUILDING oW C - RIM 964.00 I -STORY BUILDING EXIT APPROX. 54'-O" IN HEIGHT EXIT 6,200 SQ FT FOOTPRINT WALL -MOUNTED 98-ROOMS O. PROPERTY LINE O SI , LVL 04-� 14,443 SQ FT FOOTPRINT \ INV N 954.09 (18' RCP) 295-I _ 1 ... r 4 ` W INV TO PROPERTY IE S 954.09 (18" RCP) - -'� - � L� I � ICI � I� MH (48) .•cco 964.20 ._ V FUTURE7" A / A _ ✓ _ . �, ✓ , J �.� k A u �� SAN , �, �} l SW 953.04 (6" PVC) � � ST M TRASH _ �� r� ,� ,�,til�� • i � ✓,. p '.:�.;?• E 953.04 (8' PVC) FIRE HYDRANT _@ _ ��€5.10 N m °°✓' �� R I M 9 C �.. L �� , N' -- . o A 6' SATE E � �� ,• `' �� .5 ELF 6� VALVE C900 PVC W RIM ,. U @ PATIO SEATING INDOOR POOL INV W g 4 g C) \ V \ U -� Xt TEE INV W =' Qo INV 5 9 8.08 (21' HDPE) ( O 9512 INV E C O �. _ INV N 958.08 (18' PVC) N @ _ 9 C ST ST ST S S :. , w _ w . W_� . T ST T _ 2l ) O - . '�P�I► TRACK ` 22 s, --- ----�- :: .. W . .......-� ..... - ... .4 .-- o = = W. �.W. A.LL_ S '• . ': " - - EASEMEN 1 FOR SI-IARED ACCESS �1I I C„ Al n W w W W M 9 w w w ' w w - - Svc Er W U, INV W 9 1 .9 6( V) I .75 ST INV S 952.96 (6" PVC) j Il v 3 0.(1 ST STD ST ST ST INV E 951,9 T )T ST ST ST ST Approximate X I m a t e Stub locat � � W pp S per city as -built drawings I I I I � �FT7m I I I C I / I I EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING ST I I H 72" ST # W/ �� CASTING A C S 15" RCP W W W W � W W W w w CHELSEA ROAD S S S 8" PVC SDR26 S S S S S S� Rorcemain location per ST 21 " RCP ST ST T, city a sT built drawings ST ST ST ST- W/ INLET CASTING AND GRATE RIM 964.10 EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING INV E 957.88 (21 " PVC) INV W 956.25 (24" PVC) INV S 956.25 (24" PVC) F. F. 9 6 E ST MH (48") W/ SOLID CASTING RIM 1965.50 INV N 955.44 (18" RCP) ST MH (60") W/ -- SS S �ST_- RIM 964.40 INV E 960.00 (15" PVC) -W-W w w w� ;v- 16" DIP CL50 RIM= 964 88 S S S 8.. � VC SDR-26 ST S ST ST 18" RCP ST S S ST ST cn 2 ST C FA ST H (48") W/ IN ET CASTING AND GRATE RIM 964.80 INV N 955.72 (18" HDPE) I 955.72 (18" PVC) DI cn I ST MH (48") W IRIM 966.30 INV ul DFr Z' C C -PVC INLET RIM 964.30 INV N 960.30 (I z Ivi INV S 960.30 (12" HDPE L 1910 42nd Avenue W, Suite 300 Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 ciconstruction.com 320.763.2889 THIS SET OF PLANS IS THE PROPERTY OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE. COPY OR DUPLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION Monticello Hotel site plan DATE Date March 13, 2024 Drawn by TVH / ER 00111 5ITE FLAN 1" = 30'-0" aOl 1 N CD N L Scale as noted Q 0 0 r I„. I �4 � v1 �'► sue. � a yam, - i ,��,��+�A!vv \ M'~•�/ :� n 1, S In�� .° �,��nr.!i` •�' ��,I •�{'�1'�'.!II';v.C" i°�3` ¢��t �►r1 � .i_� �,I fill 1j .II R �,Il r : , f �+ .�'. „` `• �ej I 4! r •:c.. '� �, i 1 {{rr �w� .,,; 7n. 'I Ie�,r . I�►:1.R�1,I� r I � �..� '` � � —s . % � !; �i � _ :n�t�'` a^ � •,'�Us 1We ! (I II � °-� � It 'r ti°�1v!I'I'�� ;n.. IL`'_.�.;:. % ,, J-.�+d�� . ►�/'sC,1�iy7 h• r .�r� lu' �u� ra4 /� ;;II iRdl� 1 , , 'a ► �€ .ems R.� .;ar°_•�,� �(I�''` �:a.l�� 4- r f�•r, �, c'_/_..�ja4� ��1.� -�--� ie'�j�i'="/� R ie.:� .(- �r Ile .. <► ; �. � �11��' t oll� I��jj 1 ' III L� rh�II I u'linnG- pl � �� '� Iv ►s r - Pw•'- +i► .c��i I;1 III �.. � 11ii1�\ , o �' 1C>R t�'%�ill{'J�IInyYr!1111�n y _ I�UI _ ` �I � 'a � Y� pUlllau'� � ;� � ��'1��(� i�� • . �,� II1 . \�7�rTW I _ :� = .:�, - �+, I %!' �+.`' /�� UI� eF .� r ' •ter ;I�Gl �1�I ' /' '. �. "tiw � d. M,�r �• j f, e Purpose The purpose of The Pointes at Cedar District (PCD) is to implement the goals, policies and specific design requirements of The Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan (SAP), a chapter of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with the SAP, the PCD ordinance establishes three subdistricts. Each subdistrict with its specific uses and development expectations are clustered around a separate pool of The Pointes at Cedar lake and its public spaces. Each subdistrict's public and private improvements are intended to be developed in accordance with the applicable "biome" concept as identified in The Pointes SAP. Architecture, landscape architecture, and all site elements are to be designed and constructed in consistency with the biome theme within which the site is located. The three subdistricts are: • Populus: Reflects Northern Minnesota coniferous forest areas • Tilia: Reflects Central Minnesota's Big Woods and more heavily popu- lated/developed regions • Quercus: Reflects Southwestern Minnesota's prairie and oak savanna Project proposals must demonstrate how they advance the goals of the SAP and the PCD District as a precondition of successful consideration. A finding by the City Council that the proposed development activity is inconsistent with the Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan (SAP), or with this Ordinance, is grounds for denial of any application for such development. It is the exclusive role of the City Council, with consideration of recommendation and analysis from various advisory bodies of the City, including City staff, to determine whether a development proposal reaches the requirement of consistency with The Pointes SAP and this ordinance. A. Application of Ordinance The PCD applies to all private and public lands within the subject area of The Pointes Small Area Plan and as depicted on the PCD zoning map. The PCD zoning regulations establish compatibility requirements for prospec- tive development interests consistent with the intent of The Pointes SAP. The PCD regulates the uses, standards, and expectations of all new develop- ment in the District. Similarly, where this Ordinance is silent on any specific aspect of performance standards, the generally applicable regulations of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply, provided they do not conflict with the intent of The Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan. 17 The PCD regulations include specifically allowed uses. The uses listed herein are the complete list. The Community Development Department may evalu- ate proposed uses that are not specifically listed and make a determination as to whether a proposed use is both consistent with the listed uses and accept- able as related to land use compatibility and standards of development. The Community Development Department will make an administrative decision regarding such use determinations. The City Council shall consider, under the Zoning Ordinance appeal process, any disputes over such determinations. The PCD regulations also include finishing standards and graphic illustrations of examples of the scope and range of potentially suitable projects and site elements. While the District has minimum performance standards, it also is intended to inspire creativity within the themes of each "biome" sub -district. B. Conflicts Between Other Standards In cases where two or more ordinance standards conflict, this subsection shall apply. The determination as to which control applies shall be made by the Community Development Department. The following standards shall govern the Community Development Department and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in issuing use interpretations: (a) Greater consistency with the goals and objectives contained within the adopted The Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan; (b) A superior level of building form, design, or architecture; (c) Increased compatibility with adjacent development and surround ing community character; (d) Enhanced environmental quality and natural resource protection. C. Non -Conforming Uses Within the PCD zoning district, development and uses pre-exist the adoption of the PCD. These are considered legal non -conformities and may be con- tinued under the requirements of the applicable Zoning Ordinance sections regulating such uses and standards. Expansions or intensifications of existing uses may be considered but shall be subject to the Process Requirements of this Ordinance. Pointes at Cedar District 18 Process Requirements Project applications will be evaluated as to their consistency with the appli- cable PCD subdistrict regulations. Applicants should expect to understand the relevant goals and design values and elements of The Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan, explain their interpretation of those goals and standards, and identify in specific detail how their proposal comports with those goals and standards. This is an affirmative expectation of any application, and its design- ers, owners, and applicants. The PCD requires a distinct process for making application for development of any property within the district. (1) Pre -Application Prior to formal application, applicants are required to arrange one or more pre -application meetings with the Community Development Depart- ment, and other appropriate staff, to ensure that plan design and develop- ment starts off with the clearest set of goals. The pre -application meeting(s) will outline for the proposed applicant the evaluation and review process for Concept and Development Permit, and how projects may be enhanced to meet the goals of the SAP and PCD. At its sole discretion, Community Development staff may waive the pre -application requirement for a phased project which has received prior review under the PCD application process. (2) Concept Plan Submittal The Concept Plan Submittal provides the guiding framework for any devel- opment within the PCD. The Pointes SAP, along with the subsequent text and graphic representations of appropriate development in this ordinance establish a specific outline for development projects. Prior to submitting a Development Stage Permit application for the pro- posed development, submission of a Concept Plan is strongly encouraged. The Concept Plan shall be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at a concurrent work session, as scheduled by the Community Development Department. The purpose of the Concept Plan joint meeting is to gain a common and thorough understanding of the project, how the proposed project com- plies with the general goals and specific requirements of The Pointes at Cedar SAP and the PCD regulations. Concept Plan submittal will require a significant amount of submission material for review and consideration to determine consistency with the SAP and PCD standards. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant Pointes at Cedar District to explain and illustrate how the project meets the goals and require- ments of The Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan and the requirements of The Pointes at Cedar District. Concept Plan Submittal consideration shall not run concurrent with the Development Stage application. A Concept Plan Submittal review grants no development rights. (a) Concept Plan Submittal Procedure: i. Concept Plan Submittals shall be considered by a joint meet- ing of the City Council and Planning Commission. Other City commissions or committees may participate upon request and identification by the Mayor, the Planning Commission Chair, or the Community Development Director. ii. The Joint meeting shall be public and noticed in the official newspaper and on the City's website. A mailed notice to property owners shall be required to all property owners in the PCD, and any other property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel. iii. The joint meeting shall be held in worksession format and shall not be a formal public hearing. The Mayor may invite members of the public to speak on the matter as time allows, at the Mayor's discretion. iv. The submitter of the Concept Plan shall be provided an op- portunity to address the joint meeting, with time allotted as directed by the Mayor. V. City staff and/or consultants will provide an evaluation of the Concept Plan based on the following six categories: a) Consistency with the Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan goals, design values and elements b) Use and Building Architecture (Principle and Accessory) c) Landscape Design and Elements d) Connectivity (Internal to the project site, to the public space, and to external points) e) Other Site and Building Elements (Utilities, Me- chanicals, Service Areas, Signage, Lighting, Etc.) f) Special Features (Outdoor Spaces, Art, Rooftop Elements, Sustainable Features, Etc.) vi. During the concurrent meeting, the Planning Commission and City Council may make comment on the merit, need- ed changes, and suggested conditions which may assist the proposer in future application for Development Stage Permit. 3 19 vii. The Planning Commission and City Council may also take comment from the public as part of the joint meeting. viii. The Council and Planning Commission shall make no for- mal decision as part of the consideration. The City Council and Planning Commission's comments are explicitly not an approval or decision on the project. ix. The Council and Planning Commission's feedback is intend- ed to provide feedback related to the submitter on the Con- cept Plan's consistency with the items in section iv above. X. Other elements may be identified as required as part of the Concept review or separate Development Stage Permit review. The Concept Plan comments do not necessarily constitute the entire list of elements that an applicant may be required to include. xi. Following the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council, within 15 business days of the joint meeting, City staff shall provide the submitter with a summary report of the identifiable comments, terms and directions that the submitter shall consider as a part of a Development Stage Permit application. This report is not necessarily a summary of all requirements for further consideration, and may be reconsidered, supplemented, or amended by the City Council as the project proceeds through subsequent review. (b) Concept Plan Submission Requirements Completed submittal on the required City form. Narrative, including: • Explanation of the applicant's Relevant goals and stan- dards. • Explanation of the applicant's interpretation of the City goals and standards, and how the proposal comports with those goals and standards. • The Narrative must also include a listing of any PCD requirements that the applicant seeks to be modified un- der the development plan, and how those modifications are supported by the overall goals and objectives of the PCD and the Pointes Small Area Plan. • The Narrative shall further include a summary statement of the applicant's efforts to address each of the following six categories, which are not necessarily equal in weight of evaluation importance: a) Consistency with the Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan goals and design values and elements b) Use and building architecture c) Landscape design and elements d) Connectivity e) Other site & building elements f) Special features iii. Site Plan Maps, including: a) Certificate of Survey signed by registered surveyor and dated within 6 months of application b) Preliminary topography (by survey, Lidar data, or similar source) c) Public and private utility locations and easements d) Site analysis map, with significant features, views, issues, etc. e) Concept Site Development Plan, with all proposed buildings, site improvements, setbacks, land cover (acreage of pervious/impervious) addressed f) Acreage tabulation for Lots, Blocks, Easements and Outlots g) Concept stormwater plan, including a focus on the capture, treatment, and return of stormwater to the central lake feature including impervious/pervious acreage iv. Proposed Buildings and Uses, including: a) Architecture addressing the specific PCD Biome setting. b) Proposed range of principal and accessory uses for each building and throughout site c) Preliminary building elevations from all exposures d) Preliminary 3-D perspective sketch/rendering of the site and buildings e) Preliminary schematic floor plans and square foot- age, including underground parking V. Proposed Site Landscape including: a) Preliminary plant materials addressing the specific biome setting b) General landscape ground covers (grasses, mulch, other plantings) c) Other surface treatments, including pavements and decorative pavement concepts, pedestrian areas, and other use areas d) Preliminary perspective sketch of landscape at full growth (may be incorporated into the Building and Use perspective sketch). 4 Pointes at Cedar District all ment, the Community Development Department shall issue a decision within 30 calendar days of the full submission. (6) Variances and/or Planned Unit Development Variations The PCD is designed to incorporate a complete development package from any applicant as to uses, standards, and elements. Any such proposal in the PCD will be evaluated as a whole, rather than as a sum of its parts. As a result, no application for Variance (under the Zoning Ordinance variance process, Section 2.4(C)), or Planned Unit Develop- ment (under Zoning Ordinance PUD process, Section 2.4(0), is expect- ed to be necessary or appropriate. District Uses and General Regulations (1) Standards Applicable to All Uses (a) Any use not identified within the PCD shall be considered prohib- ited. (b) In the event that any finishing standard or design element of a proposed project is not specifically addressed by this district, the minimum requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance's Finishing Standards shall apply. The City reserves the right to increase or such standards to ensure consistency with the objec- tives and terms of the Small Area Plan and other standards of this ordinance. (c) Use Types. i. Commercial and public uses as identified herein will dominate the frontages along Chelsea Road, Cedar Street, and School Boulevard. ii. Along School Boulevard, especially toward the easter- ly portion of the district frontage, horizontal or vertical mixed -use shall be allowable, subject to the allowable Uses, Floor Area Ratios and Finishing Standards identi- fied by this ordinance along with public uses. iii. Residential and public uses as identified herein will dominate the frontages along Edmonson Avenue NE. (d) Appropriate access and transitions between private development area and public spaces shall be a required and integral part of the private projects. The City may work with the private developer to facilitate these access and transitional areas through grading ac- commodations or other improvements on public property when, in the discretion of the City Council, the project design justifies it. (e) Height. The district does not establish a minimum or maximum height for uses or buildings. (f) Site and building maintenance. Sites and buildings shall be maintained in accordance with City Ordinance 150. Violations are subject to the provisions of City Ordinance 10.99. (g) Joint Parking and Underground Parking elements. All projects are required to enter into a binding development agreement or other instrument as determined by the City Attorney to ensure that the minimum amount of surface parking required by the Concept and Development Stage Permit are available in common, and provide for parking lot maintenance on their respective land parcels. Nothing in this section is intended to preclude property owners from creating joint maintenance agreements, or to preclude the City (in its sole discretion) from creating a special maintenance district or other management tool for such purposes. i. Underground or similar structured parking provided for residential development shall be reserved for the private residential use of the residents and guests and shall be incorporated into the ownership and/or rent structures for said residents to ensure full utilization. ii. A parking management plan shall be required for each property at the time of Development Stage applica- tion and may be incorporated into the City's approval for the benefit of the District with terms as approved by the City. iii. Public structured parking may be provided by the City for the benefit of any use or purpose and managed under its discretion. (h) Signage. Signage within the PCD shall be controlled and regulated to en -sure reasonable visual access to the uses in the district and ensure that signage is designed to be a visual complement to the district, avoid competition with signage necessary for public safety, and avoid unnecessary visual clutter. i. The allowances for sandwich board or other temporary signage per Chapter 4.5 (C)(7) shall apply to the PCD. ii. Monument -style freestanding signs only are allowed up to 14 feet in height, and 100 square feet per sign face. Pylon signs are prohibited in the PCD. iii. Additional signage may be permitted by the City when specific traffic management is necessary on a particular site, and provided such signage is constructed with ma- terials similar to that of the principal building with which the sign is associated. iv. Wall signage shall be allowed on all faces of commercial facilities, with a maximum total square footage of 20% of Pointes at Cedar District 21 the silhouette area of the wall facing a single public street, (c) Permitted Principal Commercial Uses and where no more than 10% of any individual wall is covered. Each of these uses will be subject to the requirements of this district, v. Sign materials shall incorporate materials of the sub-dis- as well as the requirements of Chapter 5.2(E) of the City's Zoning Ordi- trict, including the use of stone in the base and frame of nance. Where such regulations conflict with the requirements of this the freestanding sign. district, the requirements of this Chapter will take precedence. vi. Other regulations of Chapter 4.5 of the Monticello Zon- ing Ordinance shall apply to development in this district. i. Retail stores Where the requirements for this district and Chapter 4.5 ii. Full -service Restaurants conflict, the requirements of this district shall apply. iii. Specialty Eating Establishments iv. Brew Pubs (2) Standards Applicable to Commercial Site Development V. Production Brewery w/Tap Rooms vi. Micro -distilleries w/Cocktail Room or Lounge (a) Minimum Lot Size, Lot Area, Setbacks vii. Commercial Lodging, excluding Boarding Houses No minimum lot dimensions or setbacks. Lot dimensions and set- viii. Bed and Breakfast backs (including building, parking, other setbacks) shall be deter- ix. Professional Offices mined as a component of the Development Stage Permit approval. X. Personal Services A. Medical Clinics (b) Floor Area Ratio xii. Retail Service Uses A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard is applicable to the Commercial xiii. Day Care Centers - Commercial areas of the PCD. The FAR shall apply to the parcel being devel- xiv. Entertainment/Recreation — Indoor Commercial oped, including accessory parking being developed on adjoining xv. Event Centers parcels or outlots as may be platted and approved. FAR shall be xvi. Financial Institutions calculated by dividing the gross floor area of the building by the xvii. Temporary "cart" or "truck" -based food vendors gross lot area attributable to the project. Underground and struc- xviii. Public uses in Parks tured parking, required ponding, and public space set aside from (d) Permitted Commercial Accessory Uses the development areas and provided for public open space use, shall not be included in the FAR calculation. Each of these uses will be subject to the requirements of this district, i. Commercial lands fronting the public park/lakefront areas as well as the requirements of Chapter 5.2(E) of the City's Zoning Ordi- of the PCD shall maintain a minimum FAR of 0.4 for single nance. Where such regulations conflict with the requirements of this story buildings, 0.8 for two-story buildings, and 1.2 for district, the requirements of the PCD will take precedence. three story buildings or greater. Applicants shall provide the square foot ratio at concept level. i. Outdoor Seating ii. Commercial land not fronting the public park/lakefront ii. Outdoor Sidewalk Sales & Display areas of the PCD shall maintain a minimum FAR of 0.3 for iii. Outdoor Recreation, not including firing ranges single story buildings, 0.6 for two-story buildings, and 0.9 iv. Drive -Through Facilities, subject to the following re - for three story building or greater. quirements: iii. Floor Area Ratio may be used as a guide in mixed use 1. Restaurants and specialty eating establishments projects, however, the overall requirements for FAR and 2. Financial Institutions density will be set by the Concept and Development Stage 3. Pharmacies Permit. V. Trash Enclosures iv. Commercial uses should be designed to create access and vi. Signage (as permitted by the PCD ordinance only) exposure to both the primary public walkway/plaza areas, vii. Solar Energy Systems and the public street exposure areas where applicable. viii. Parking Pointes at Cedar District (e) Commercial Site Finishing Standards iv v Parking. Joint parking and access over the parking lot areas serving the site is required and will be granted similar joint parking and access to adjoining property. Parking supply for private development must be calcu- lated at no less than 50% of the required parking in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4.8., and no more than 65% of the required parking in that section. Private parking areas not subject to joint parking shall be reviewed and approved as part of the Development Stage permit. Landscaping Plan. A robust planting plan reflecting the requirements of the sub -district is expected. The plant- ing quantities of Chapter 4.1 (F) and (H) of the Monticel- lo Zoning Ordinance shall serve as a base requirement. The requirements for buffering in Chapter 4.1 (G) shall not be strictly applied, however, applicants should design projects with a sensitivity to the need to screen or buffer when incompatibilities are apparent between the proposed occupants of the project and the adjoining land uses. Landscape Standards. Landscape design in the PCD is a critical component of consistency with the goals of the Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan. The SAP utilizes the "biome" concept as the basis for its design, and compatible landscape elements will required in confor- mance to the SAP goals. The PCD encourages a reliance on qualified landscape architecture in site planning to ensure compliance with the District goals. A successful landscape plan will be factored in the project review. A Site grading and land form, integration of stormwater management into the landscape design, and significant use of hardscape elements such as pedestrian and patio amenities and other active outdoor use areas will be re- quired for all development in the District. An emphasis on year-round use and interest will be required, Signage. Commercial signage in the district shall consist of monument -style and wall signage as defined by this ordinance. One monument sign shall be allowed for each approved driveway entrance from the primary access road. Consolidated monument sign displays are required for multiple tenant buildings and sites and as required for shared access parcels. Accessory Components and Appurtinant Uses, Struc- tures and Elements. These shall be designed and 22 constructed to be consistent with the design and materials requirements in the various sub -districts. Every building shall be designed and constructed with attention to all external exposures, including loading, mechanical, and service components. Applicants shall make a particu-lar effort to design service exposures and entrances to minimize the size of such spaces, blend them into the overall building and site design, and maximize the public exposure portions of the buildings. Operational aspects of the commercial uses and known tenants shall be a component of the management and review process. Pointes at Cedar District 9 JNIISIX3 0 Z x w a W a m m J 7 U w a W 7 a O _UW U~ UW Q Q �O .i �O f~/!61 NO NN W C 2 7 pz pG Oz mw mQ mw f W mr m~ ms oz on ® II K U Q aOz aU 20 011, Z iiIIII iiIIII iiIIII m II J ��.. w 11 a J IJ IJ U 2 ii0 Fua z 3N 3Atl NJSNOWJ3 I I ' 1SbbpbJ _� � 1 • 1 1 Pointes at Cedar District Coniferous Forest) The intent of the Populus Sub -district is to create an environment that is reflective of the Northern Minnesota lakes and woods region, with elements that range from the Lake Superior shoreline to the cabin and/ or resort lodge lakefronts. Buildings in the Populus Sub -district should suggest a north -woods theme in overall design and feel. The Pointes landscape will reflect this region with extensive rock outcroppings, pine, birch, spruce, and tamarack tree cover, and naturalized shrub -intensive landscapes with limited lawn grasses. The elements of design applicable to commercial and residential develop- iv ment for this subdistrict are as follows: (a) Architecture, Materials, and Architectural Details. Buildings will reflect a north -woods design and feel. Square or rectangular timbers shall serve as a theme for primary building components or prominent detailing. Wood -look components V. should be dominated by darker natural colors, with accent col- ors on detailing, balconies, window frames, and similar features. Extensive use of angular cut stone -face as a building feature is strongly encouraged, both on the building itself, as well as bases for structure support timbers and related features. Round -sur- faced fieldstone is discouraged, although rounded granite stone vi and boulder materials may serve as landscape features in areas used for dry stream -beds and drainageways. Attention should be paid to contrasting architectural features, including entry canopies, architectural metal components, and coordinating materials and colors throughout the project compo- nents. ii. Roof lines, eaves, roofing materials. Composite or asphalt vii. shingles, wood shakes, and metal standing seam products are considered representative materials for roofs in the district. Metal may be incorporated into the soffits, eaves, and facia, as well as featured areas where architectural metal treatments enhance the ability of the building to viii meet the intent of the sub -district. Roofs should be of a sloped design, and extensive use of gables, hipped roofs, and avoidance of a continuous roof ridge line will be required. ix. iii. Wall materials and mixes, window glass and window walls. A significant reliance on wood -look materials, with angular cut stone (especially granite or basalt) should be 25 incorporated into building materials. Composite materi- als may be used (such as LP and fiber cement board) that simulate the look of authentic wood and manufactured cement products may be used that simulate the look of authentic stone, however, vinyl or panel style is not an acceptable material. Concrete masonry units should be visible only as part of foundation materials in locations of limited exposure and visibility. Glass should comprise a significant amount of the building walls. All sides of every building shall be carefully designed to include the ac- ceptable materials, and a significant component of stone treatment Window signage. Commercial uses should avoid the use of windows for signage display, with limited exceptions for "Open" or Hours of Operation announcements. Window signage is ideally placed in the door, or immediately adjoining windows to the public entrance(s) and shall be limited to no more than 25% of those windows. Screening of ground or roof mounted mechanicals. Mechanical equipment should be designed to minimize visibility from any viewpoint. When such equipment is visible, the project design should use site design elements that screen the views of such equipment with materials that incorporate the equipment with the building design. Balcony design and materials. Recessed or inset bal- conies on residential buildings that include overhead weather protection for the tenants are preferred. Pro- jecting balconies may be considered when all elements of the balcony design, including cover, support beams and timbers, and other elements contribute to the utility of the balcony, and the goals of the district. Balcony railings shall be coordinated to the other materials found in the building. Accessory building design and materials. Any accessory building, use, or element shall be designed to be compat- ible with the principal building and materials on the site, and these requirements. Site design should de-emphasize accessory buildings and uses. Lighting. Buildings and sites should emphasize decorative lighting features under eaves, and in landscape, patio, and walkway areas. Materials and design should reflect the themes utilized in the principal building. Usable outdoor spaces. These spaces should be incor- porated into the site planning. The outdoor use areas should be located so as to transition to the public outdoor Pointes at Cedar District 13 91 spaces and provide views to and from the outdoor use areas. Patios, pergolas, decks, and similar features will require appropriate landscape treatments, as well as light- ing that complements the use of the site, and views of the site from other property in the district. (b) Site Structures and Other Elements For site structures, including accessory buildings and uses, the ob- jective will be to minimize impacts of the accessory activity on the larger principal use of the property. For these structures and uses, materials and styles shall be used that complement and coordi- nate with those of the principal building and the biome concepts. Examples of site structures include, but are not limited to: • Service entrance treatments • Loading/trash areas or scheduling • Utility box screening • Parking lot design and lighting • Parking lot layout • Parking quantity and joint use requirements • Security lighting • Pedestrian lighting • Outdoor sales displays • Fencing and retaining wall requirements • Signage (c) Site Landscape Elements In the Populus sub -district, plant material selections should be centered on Pine, Spruce, Birch, Aspen, and Tamarack tree plant- ing, and those shrub and perennial plantings that may be com- monly found in northern climate areas of Minnesota. Planting areas that include extensive use of rock outcroppings, northern wildflowers and groundcovers, and in which lawn grasses are limited, are strongly encouraged. The following elements will be evaluated for conformance to the sub -district's intent. • Landscape materials — plants, mulches, groundcover, etc. • Landscape quantities • Landscape design • Site landforms and grading • Alternative stormwater design • Pedestrian connections • Pedestrian amenities • Site furniture • Landscape irrigation • Site and building lighting 14 Pointes at Cedar District 27 Image Gallery [INSERT] The images in this gallery support the text of each biome subdistrict within the PCD. The images illustrate a framework for the types of buildings, archi- tecture, landscapes, and site amenities that developers and designers should use to imagine their specific projects. No single image represents the ultimate design for the biome; rather, the collection of images represent a feeling that designers are encouraged to pursue creatively, in the context of the needs of their particular project. Pointes at Cedar District 15 BRIM= 958.73 RIM= 957.75 RIM= 961.12 \ INV= 955.63 INV N= 953.65 RIM= 961.00 W= 956,62 INV 5= 953.55 (1 C' RCP) \ RIM--959.94 - W W w w w W RIM= 964,60 w -W INV= 960.94 w -w w w w v w w w w w w \ w w - C H E S E A F 0 0 D 16" DIP CL5° 8" PVC sDR26 S RIM = 964 8 8 SS s S S S S s S s Ss -S S 8" S VC SDR-26 R I M =H6 5.2 6 Forcemain location per T �1 S city as -built drawings � ST ST 21' RCP �� ST T -ST S BM-q- 15" RCP ST ST ST ST 18" RCP ST �� T ST ST ST ST ST ST ST - ST ST S ST P-BUR P-BUR S „) Cleanout MH (FM) \ 27" RCP -- P_Bur. P-Bur. P uFl P-BUR P_BUR P- R_ P-Buy -BUR P-BUG M (48 S 1 2 EC. P-BUR P-BUR r-BU�t-BU�t P-BUR (/� C')L 1 6" �'VG-Ccl-liuu _ --C (!) c' v -- - - - B S S S -� __ -- IN T CASTING AND CA -Bu. -__ - i P-BU3 P-B R- �� --- S- S P-BUF -P-BUR P-BUR P-BUF P-BUR P-BU^-P-BU.I M 965. P-BUR�� ---P_BUF( P-BUR P-BUI. P-BUR P-BUU P-BUR P-BUR P-BUR _ l INV W 961.08 (15" RCP) _-r�UR - P-BUU BUR -p P BUFl I I dec. Trans. , INV 961.08 (15" RCP) - _ - - - - - CrneeSidewalk \ L ---------------------------------- \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 9 9 W - J �G U FL= 96�. FL= 953.02 Q ST ST ST -ST (S'5 " RCP) C Drainage Basin ST 1 �� I L= 953J 3 i U I ST MH (60") W/ SOLID CASTING ST MH (48") W� I ST MH (48") W RIM 956.50 � � � i NV E 953.00 (18" RCP) �- INLET CASTING Afr D GRATE ' INLET CASTING f INV S 953.00 (18" RCP) RIM 966.30 INV NW 953.00 (18" RCP) � � RIM 964.80 � � � (D INV W 959.47 (1`," PVC) NV N 961.41 (1 CD I 0 �- INV N 956.01 (15" PVC) I A ST MH D W INV S 956.01 (10" HDPE) I (48") W� (D SOLID CASTING I I I� RIM 964.00 I O INV N 954.09 (18" RCP) I FIRE I�,-,YDRANT I m MH 48" -- ��cn INV S 954.09 (18" RCP) ST I ( ) F.G. ELEV 965.70 964.20 � � �� GAAA��VA�VE � 199 SW 953.04 (6" PVC) CAN MH 4 E 953.04 (8" PVC) -FIRE HYDRANT - ST MH (48") W/ � � )� F.G. ELEV 965.10 INLET CASTING AND GRATE / RIM 965.100 6" GATE VALVE ;`8 PI,iC) 5LF-6" DR18 C900 PVC WM RIM 964.15 t� INV W 9j0.6J6 8"x6" TEE C I NV 5 9511D 6 �� INV W 958.08 (21 " HDPE) INV N 958.08 (18" PVC) INV E 9510. (, P\'C �� _ � ST ST OTS -SS�ST ST - - - -f�-------�-- ---- - - - - - - s=---- ------ I- -- - s � S s ---- -- -- S _ -�is ---- -----� -------- -- -�Q�I -MH (48"� - ---- ------ -�---- ------ ------ - I n RIM- 9 w -�-- W v� W W W R M 9 0 �, 5 W - W W W W 641 A PVC ET INV W 9 51-9 6 ( PVC) - _ I� INV 5 952.96 (6" PVC) I V S 50.0 1 " DPE ST ST ST ST INV E 951 .9 T O PVC )T ST ST ST �T _ W Approximat stub locata 011s m per city as -built drawings --I I � � ❑ 0� I� � I I ❑�❑ ST � c �ML (72" ❑ 1 ❑C ❑�� ❑C ❑1 ST I� �J I 1�1 CASTING ACID rPATT� W/ INLET CASTING AND GRATE RIM 964.40 -1 RIM 964.10 � INV E 957.88 (21 " PVC) INV E 960.00 (15" PVC) ST H 48" I INV w 956.25 (24" PVC) ( ) W/ _ I I F.F. 966°00 IN El CASTING AND GRATE PVC INLET INV S 956.25 (24" PVC) RIM 964.80 RIM 964.30 INV H 955�J__)).72 (18" HDPE) i m INV N 960.30 (12' I'vi ST MH (48") CST:1 955.72 (18" PVC) ❑ I _ W1 SOLID CASTIN� I I I I ST INV S 960.30 (12" HDPE RIM 965.50 D� D� D� D 1 LC D� ❑ m r INV N 955.44 (18" RCP) ST MH (60") W/ � � � � �i�/� „ -- .. _ � _ -0 Z" AfREA CIVIL PLAN a010 I" = 30'-0" C.I. �UNSTRUTIONM DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE V 1910 42nd Avenue W, Suite 300 Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 ciconstruction.com 320.763.2889 THIS SET OF PLANS IS THE PROPERTY OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE. COPY OR DUPLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 701, m1wi hqk ky 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www tanek. com REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION Monticello Hotel area civil plan DATE Date March 4, 2024 Drawn by TVH / ER a0l 0 N CD N L Scale as noted Q 0 0 c RIM_ 958.73 INV= 955,63 I RIM= 959.94 � W RIM= 957.75 RIM- 961.12 INV N= 955.65 RIM= 961 00 �NV= g5E62 INV S= 953.55 12" RCP) SITE AND 51JILDING INFC�IATION SIZE PERCENTAGE OF NOTES SITE TOTAL SITE AREA 13%261 SQ. FT IMPERVIOUS • 113,218 SQ. FT. = 81.3% PERVIOUS 26,049 SQ. FT. - 16.1% NOTE: NUMBERS MAY CHANGE SLIGHTLY AS SIDEWALKS ARE FINALIZED BUILDING SIZE PERCENTAGE OF FLOORS SITE BUILDING HOTEL 14,443 SQ. FT" 10.4% 4 FLOORS FOOTPRINTS FUTURE 6,200 SQ. FT. 4.4% I FLOOR RESTAURANT TOTAL 20,643 SQ. FT. 14.a% W W W W W w w w w w W W W N W RIM= 9 4,60 w w w C H E S E A R 0 0 D 16" DIP CL50 INV= 9 9 4 8" PVC SDR26 \ RIM = 9 6 4 8 8 S S S S S S S SS S RIM=� 5.26 - SS � S � S S T S S 8„� VC SDR-26 Rorcemain location per city as -built drawings ST ST ST sT sT �- ST ST S ST BM-4 15" RCP 21' RCP ST ST T ST T ST ST 18" RCP S ST T ST ST ST ST __ ST S P- UR - P-BU�9 BUR BUA ( ) Cleanout MH (FM) 27" RCP,- _ -BUS P Bue P-Bun P-BUR P P-Bur. P- S M 48" 12" RCP S Buy ' P- I- P s - - -- a P-Buy S I S S v �J S VC u _ _ T CASTING AN D 0 - CA _ - IN --- S_ U• � ... ..t .. ..._":. .. ... .,. ., ....;, ....: ..3 : ,•. ,. . s... _ ...r ".,. .••r.• �''t'=Tom, t:a •_C:�•. w=.t.^ -�fi:" 4 ,• • Y. S ry+. •fir J� B J965. 1 S .... /. ,...., .. ... .. ..o ,. .. .. < . .. ... .. ;S .. .. .... - Pr BURY P - - 8 \\ ...•... • :.. ...: -•..a. . .. Y•,I'Y bs.- •.. .. v. .,.. .:. N. n.c , ,. .J -h >2.• .. _._ s - .yt •Pl BUR # P' BU�� P BUR P-BUR _ ,..,"' P •. t s >- «..... .: .. .... e. •+, :... ..f.. .•a :,. ,.;.. .. .•. a;•, .'.,, •. s P-BUR -BUR a.. ,.. .. .. .. !i.. ..... .s •. ,. .. ..... ., .y. ....,. {•.. :::=F•9d..,lt:wJ_ '.!'Sir 30 ts� .r .0 . : s.:r,- .{, •i �:� buR b'-Bu; I: P-Bu; P-Bu,� - P�" ` PROPERTY�N _M - - ,;:_ 8 15' P- - e _ NV 1 W 961 .0 ( RCP) BUP - P P-BUR - . W.�•v �.:' 'Y''a'"w 0 \ \ P BUT : _ W . . . . . . W WIW . . . . W W �` W -' .l . W . . -6 40" 1PAI1111WCING WT i ._� _ W . Fi�Pri T,*n Sj ''' - W ; NV 961.08 (15' RCP 12 F L6 J 202 PARKING STALLS l8 of WHICH ARE T -ST ST 1 5 ST - ST FL 9 5 3 e 0 2 ADA ACCESSIBLE) 0 Drainage Basin .W. WwW:.oW:.: - -. oW ( „) 16 v ST M H 60 W/ t+," : 12 12 T EL DROP-OPFI � W `� W I a SOLID CASTING ' ' I I COCHERE N I ` RIM MH 48 W W .. W W II I " I I I II NV E 953.00 (18' RCP + -Az I 24'-0 �i F0 -0' 24'-0" 20 -O' TRH' INV S 953.00 18' RCP) ��{ :; ::;' or or or or 01 ❑ ❑ .�2(� _ O I INV NW 953.00 8' R ' FUTURE ✓ ,, ✓, Q;,, , PATIO SEATING ❑ ❑ J�'�,- _ //�j✓= r , r ✓,� ,� r J� 1 _ ,.f: 1-011 2.4 MUT CD \ W , W .-W t/ 1 )�: � a <!' �e^• � S �v1 -1 '�, 4 8 � �✓ � HOTEL �� W ,S(D S'LID PROPOSED FUTURE RESTAURANT 4-STORY BUILDING EXIT I -STORY BUILDING APPROX. 54'-0" IN HEIGHT '4. RIM 964.00 EXIT .< II200 SQ FT FOOTPRINT W-ROOMS 14,443 SQ FT FOOTPRINT I � u. W� - - •=9'• - INV S 954.09 (1 8" RCP) � - - I T - MH _ - 964.20 \ / e W } a- "'' FUTURE A I - I SW 953.04 (6 PVC) TRASH rd - '�'� ✓"��✓N," 5AN r E 953.04 (8 PVC) YG/ HYDRANT 10 ST --@ CD ,...;"✓ / ,.: RIM - 51 E NL ( 10 t ,ATE VALVE 1� �N'' _ @ .� '! < -� INV W 1 DR10 C900 PVC W RIM �� @ PATIO SEATING INDOOR POOL I _- g CJ \ y � �• p / TEE I I f ,� a Q INV w 9 8.08 (21 ' HDPE) INV 5 9 512 C � - -, W INV .. � 8 PVC) . . " Y: ' NV OS � � N 958. C to t .. W `t; S :� - - ��T ST S C1 ST 3ST�._w.TT(r _�N♦ TRACK '� c s° ...: ..W s S y'�.,, , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EASEMENT FOR SHARED ACCESS ii N - - - - - - - - - -- ( -- -- �< �-�-� I W IM 9 5 5I� w w w W w - W W - W W/ w n �, ---- �I Vc INV. 'x> w r: I V W 9 1 INV-� 4 � ST �::;, . i �, , 9 6 � 99 V � � � I �I� � .75 ST INV S 952.96 (6 WC Ilw 3 50. 1 " DPE ST STD ST ST ST INV E 951 .9 T 0" � V C T ST ST ST ST r O X l m a t e stub U W pp b locata ns I per city as built drawings I DV EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING ST I I I ST W/ H 7 2 " HC �� I I 1I CASTING A N ( PATS W/ INLET CASTING AND GRATE RIM 964.40 RIM 964.10 EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING I INV E 957.88 (21 " PVC) INV E 960.00 (15" PVC) I � « I I I INV w 956.25 (24" PVC) ST H (48") W/ I I I F`�coIN ET CASTING AND GRATE INV s 956.25 (24" PVC) � � RIM 964.80 INV 955.72 (18" HDPE) S ST MH (48") � T ST 955.72 (18" PVC) I C W/ SOLID CASTIN� ST � RIM 1965.50 V_1� I � � INV N 955.44 (18" RCP)KIIIA ST �Vi� � � I ST MH (48") W RIM 966.30 IINV N 961.4 -PVC INLET RIM 964.30 INV N 960.3�_ i z Ivi INV S 960.30 (12" HDPE i I X. CONS-TRUCTIO-NI, DEVELOP I DESIGN I MANAGE V 1910 42nd Avenue W, Suite 300 Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 ciconstruction.com 320.763.2889 THIS SET OF PLANS IS THE PROPERTY OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE. COPY OR DUPLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF C.I. CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 701, m1wi hqk ky 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION Monticello Hotel site plan DATE Date March 4, 2024 Drawn by TVH / ER I 51TE FLAN a011 I" = 30'-0" a0l 1CD L Scale as noted Q 0 0 30 75 0 U z w m to U) J 0 a w z z 2 0 0 w F- Z) to T w D z w a a z w x 0 wsb March 29, 2024 Matt Leonard City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Good Neighbors Properties Commercial Development — Concept Stage PCD Plan Submittal & Review City Project No. 2024-12 WSB Project No. 024964-000 Dear Mr. Leonard: We have reviewed the Good Neighbors Properties Commercial Development conceptual stage PCD site plans dated March 4, 2024. The applicant proposes to construct a 98 Room Hotel and a 6,200 square foot restaurant on a 3.2-acre parcel. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello's general engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding these matters. General 1. City staff will provide additional comments under separate cover. 2. Provide soil borings and full geotechnical evaluation to verify soil conditions, groundwater elevations within the site, and the proposed pavement section meeting City design requirements. Site, Street. & Utility Plans 3. Streets, parking lots, and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision Ordinances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Street and Utility Construction. 4. The Fire Marshall and/or building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency vehicle access/circulation. Fire truck circulation will need to accommodate the City's ladder truck. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures, cul-de-sacs, roundabout areas, and parking lots as applicable. Additional comments may be provided under separate cover. 5. With future submittals, provide a utility plan showing the existing and proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer serving the site. Watermain looping may be required through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply. Additional utility stubs to adjacent properties may also be required to accommodate future looping connections. M:\024964-000\Admin\Docs\2024-03-12 Submittal (Concept)\_2024-03-29 Good Neighbor Properties Commercial Dev - Concept PCD Stage - WSB Engineering Comments.docx 31 Good Neighbors Properties Commercial Development — Concept PCD Stage Plan Submittal — WSB Engineering Plan Review March 29, 2024 Page 2 6. With future submittals, provide a full civil plan set that includes an existing/removals plan, utility plan, more detailed site/paving plan, grading plan, erosion/sediment control, and standard details plan. Stormwater Management Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site: a. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City's Design Manual. b. Runoff from this site was sized to be accommodated by the original overall Deephaven Apartments project. Provide modeling/calculations and/or confirm that the original development stormwater management plan will accommodate this portion of impervious draining to the existing basin to the south. Runoff that is not being treated by the existing basin will need to meet water quality standards. c. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1" over the new impervious area that is not being treated by the existing basin and infiltration basin; confirm the existing basin to the south provides this treatment. At minimum, pre-treatment measures are required onsite prior to discharging to the volume control BMPs. d. Water quality requirements will be considered met if volume control is achieved for the site. If volume control cannot be met then the development will need to show a no net increase of TSS and TP. e. Rate control will be required for the new development. All discharge rates must be equal or less than existing rates for each discharge location. f. Show underground chambers on the site plan to accommodate for onsite drainage. Modeling should accompany the submittal to show that the chambers are sized to handle onsite drainage. g. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and should be submitted with the stormwater report for review. Specific guidelines should be presented for each BMP. The underground chambers should have manufactures recommendations provided. h. The site is within the DWSMA and is subject to requirements of the City's Wellhead Protection Plan. 8. BMP's and underground chambers shall be free of landscaping and trees. Provide unobstructed maintenance routes around all stormwater areas. 9. Two feet of freeboard is required for the HLW of a basin to the low opening of a structure. Two feet of vertical separation is also required from an area's EOF elevation to the low opening. 10. Include storm sewer sizing calculations with future plans. Refer to Monticello Design guidelines for Storm sewer requirements. 11. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to construction commencing. 12. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP consistent with the MPCA CSWGP with future plan submittals. Provide calculations showing disturbed area, proposed impervious, and future impervious for the site. 32 Good Neighbors Properties Commercial Development — Concept PCD Stage Plan Submittal — WSB Engineering Plan Review March 29, 2024 Page 3 13. Final review of erosion control BMP's will take place with future submittals. Provide redundant perimeter control around all wetlands onsite. 14. The last structure prior to discharge to a stormwater BMP is required to be a 4' minimum sump structure. Traffic & Access 15. The applicant is proposing three driveway access points, one of them includes a connection to the existing southerly apartment site development that ultimately connects to Cedar Street; the access would be shared with the apartment building to the south. A new driveway is proposed on Chelsea Road, located approximately 580 feet east of Cedar Street. The second new driveway is proposed on Edmonson Avenue, located approximately 240 feet south of Chelsea Road and will also be shared with the existing apartment building to the south. Street access spacing, grades, and sight lines will be reviewed with future submittals. A traffic study was submitted with the original overall development project that envisioned the access on Chelsea Road to be located further west to align with the existing access across the street (Best Western access). The City's preference is to align the new access as the original traffic study had intended. Otherwise, if the applicant is planning to move forward with the access as shown on the concept, they will be required to provide an update to the traffic study that considers the new access location and implications related to traffic turning movements, safety, and potential striping improvements along Chelsea Road. 16. The site would generate approximately 1,432 daily trips, 103 AM peak hour trips and 113 PM peak hour trips. The existing Average Daily Traffic on Cedar Street is 4,324, on Chelsea Road is 6,838, and on Edmonson Avenue is 1,578. The addition of the proposed traffic would have an impact on roadway capacity and operations. A traffic study was completed in 2021 for the Chelsea Commons area, which includes this development. As developments build out, mitigation measures from the traffic study will be needed. 17. Eight accessible parking spaces are proposed and meet the threshold of 7 for a parking lot with 201-300 spots. 18. Show and note pedestrian facilities including ramps on the site plan. 19. Parking lot photometrics to be reviewed when provided in a future submittal. Wetlands & Environmental 20. Any permanent or temporary impacts proposed as a result of site development must be permitted via the Wetland Conservation Act. 33 Good Neighbors Properties Commercial Development — Concept PCD Stage Plan Submittal — WSB Engineering Plan Review March 29, 2024 Page 4 A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant submits complete civil plans and a stormwater management report. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Feel free to contact me at 612-419-1549 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering review. Sincerely, WSB James L. Stremel, P.E. Senior Project Manager